3 ms·

This is one of the best articles I have ever read on understanding what video games are: > Games, with their endless task lists and character-leveling systems,

This is one of the best articles I have ever read on understanding what video games are: > Games, with their endless task lists and character-leveling systems, their choice architectures and mission checklists, are purpose generators. They bring order to gamers' lives. > Even the most open-ended games tend to offer a sense of progress and direction, completion and commitment. In other words, they make people happy—or at least happier, serving as a buffer between the player and despair. Video games, you might say, offer a sort of universal basic income for the soul. > What exactly does it mean for a game to be appealing and engaging? What does it mean for games to be fun—so much fun, in some cases, that players will devote hundreds or even thousands of hours a year to playing them? [...] One way to do that, it turns out, is to give people a sense of earned achievement. "What games are good at—what they are designed to do—is simulate being good at something," Wolpaw says. > "It's a simulation of being an expert," Wolpaw says. "It's a way to fulfill a fantasy." That fantasy, ultimately, is one of work, purpose, and social and professional success.

netzone 9y ago
Not sure I agree that it simulates being good at something. To make that point, you would have to agree on what a simulation is. Is it a non-physical game, so chess would be included, or would it be any game, which would mean football etc. are also included? Or, perhaps more likely, the author is talking about computer games only. Let's assume that. That means that the only difference between a "simulated" game and a "real" game is that one is done on a computer of some sort. I don't feel any different emotions when I play WoW than when I play chess or football with my friends. To me, they're the same thing, only experienced through different means. The only reason people don't play football for "hundreds or even thousands of hours" every year is because there's a physical limitation to it. I can only make the assumption that the author of the article is making a jab at computers at it's core, and that's troubling because what would that mean for us developers? I see programming almost as a game, it releases the same kind of feelings of progress, completion and commitment as the author talks about in his article. Does that mean that being good at programming is just a simulation of being good at something?
- skybrian 9y ago
  Games often involve rituals that are symbolic of real-world activities. Crafting a cake in Minecraft is nothing like baking a real cake. Crafting is really just an abstract puzzle, but the theming makes it more satisfying than learning to solve such a simple puzzle would normally be. Similarly for other games. Game combat can be fun and there can be real skills involved, but they are often unrelated to why the ritual is satisfying. It's possible to learn real-world skills from games, but you need to be clear-headed about what those skills actually are and whether they will transfer to anything else. In comparison, sports provide physical exercise and tend to have a lot less theming. But consider the relationship between martial arts and real fighting. There's often some ritual there, no?
- linkregister 9y ago
  One way to look at it is that video games are not simulations, since there are real-world tournaments with large prizes attached to them. Spectators around the world watch gamers live-stream their gameplay on Twitch.tv. On the other hand, chess is a highly abstracted simulation of battle; other video games are designed to be as realistic as much as entertaining: first-person shooters, racing games, flight simulators. Others simulate concepts, like improving swordplay or archery skills. I think it's safe to call most modern video games simulations. That doesn't mean they don't have great merit as art or athletic/strategic achievement.

netzone 9y ago

Not sure I agree that it simulates being good at something. To make that point, you would have to agree on what a simulation is. Is it a non-physical game, so chess would be included, or would it be any game, which would mean football etc. are also included? Or, perhaps more likely, the author is talking about computer games only. Let's assume that. That means that the only difference between a "simulated" game and a "real" game is that one is done on a computer of some sort. I don't feel any different emotions when I play WoW than when I play chess or football with my friends. To me, they're the same thing, only experienced through different means. The only reason people don't play football for "hundreds or even thousands of hours" every year is because there's a physical limitation to it. I can only make the assumption that the author of the article is making a jab at computers at it's core, and that's troubling because what would that mean for us developers? I see programming almost as a game, it releases the same kind of feelings of progress, completion and commitment as the author talks about in his article. Does that mean that being good at programming is just a simulation of being good at something?

skybrian 9y ago
Games often involve rituals that are symbolic of real-world activities. Crafting a cake in Minecraft is nothing like baking a real cake. Crafting is really just an abstract puzzle, but the theming makes it more satisfying than learning to solve such a simple puzzle would normally be. Similarly for other games. Game combat can be fun and there can be real skills involved, but they are often unrelated to why the ritual is satisfying. It's possible to learn real-world skills from games, but you need to be clear-headed about what those skills actually are and whether they will transfer to anything else. In comparison, sports provide physical exercise and tend to have a lot less theming. But consider the relationship between martial arts and real fighting. There's often some ritual there, no?
linkregister 9y ago
One way to look at it is that video games are not simulations, since there are real-world tournaments with large prizes attached to them. Spectators around the world watch gamers live-stream their gameplay on Twitch.tv. On the other hand, chess is a highly abstracted simulation of battle; other video games are designed to be as realistic as much as entertaining: first-person shooters, racing games, flight simulators. Others simulate concepts, like improving swordplay or archery skills. I think it's safe to call most modern video games simulations. That doesn't mean they don't have great merit as art or athletic/strategic achievement.