4 ms·

I get the sentiment, but I don't think video game competition isn't deeply physical in nature. Sure, experience and kinetic intelligence matter a lot in video g

I get the sentiment, but I don't think video game competition isn't deeply physical in nature. Sure, experience and kinetic intelligence matter a lot in video games, but as any fighting game player can tell you: some folks just have fast reflexes and can train their bodies to react to even your best setup. Games build in cooldowns, frame locks and combos to help smooth out these ability curves but there is a lot of raw physical ability in pro gaming. But I have to ask, isn't the pointless, manufactured competition actually the worst part of all this? Games could recreate any universe we can imagine. Worlds without scarcity, worlds without conflict, worlds deeply simulating fantastical aspects of an alternative universe where any experience is possible. Weirdly, all those games end up with people pointing guns at one another. Even a lot of AR games try to recreate all the "fun" of urban warfare by manufacturing. It's pretty depressing, if you ask me.

CDSlice 7y ago
> Games could recreate any universe we can imagine. Worlds without scarcity, worlds without conflict, The thing is, all that is _boring_. If there is no scarcity, there is no progression. This can be OK if there is other sources of conflict like in Kerbal Space Program sandbox mode where you have an unlimited amount of parts and Kerbals to build with but you have to overcome environmental challenges inherent in flying a ship to another planet and back. Even so there are people (like me) that find sandbox KSP not very fun because there is no progression/scarcity. If there is no conflict of any kind there is nothing preventing you from achieving your goal immediately without having to do much of anything, which isn't exactly very fun. > worlds deeply simulating fantastical aspects of an alternative universe where any experience is possible. This is a description of the environment of a game, not a game itself. Very few people want to play "games" that are solely experiencing the environment with no real goals. The only games I can think of that are like that are sandbox games like Minecraft, and TBH I don't think sandbox Minecraft really counts as a game anymore than building a stick fort does in real life. (Also, survival mode in Minecraft is very popular. And guess what it has? Conflict with the environment and players) > Weirdly, all those games end up with people pointing guns at one another. Because (most) people need to have goals to work towards both in real life and in games. If you don't give a player goals, they will make their own, often being "make the most money" or "be the best at combat." Combat as a game is far from modern, the only modern thing we've added is making it virtual combat.
- KirinDave 7y ago
  > The thing is, all that is _boring_. If there is no scarcity, there is no progression. That's just false. One of the most popular games in human history, Minecraft, completely destroys this notion. Every resource is infinitely renewable and available in great supply. > This can be OK if there is other sources of conflict like in Kerbal Space Program sandbox mode where you have an unlimited amount of parts and Kerbals to build with but you have to overcome environmental challenges inherent in flying a ship to another planet and back. This sentence seems contradictory. The challenge is in the doing of a thing. That's not conflict OR scarcity, it's simply your experience. And it's a fun and famous game with a huge following. > If there is no conflict of any kind there is nothing preventing you from achieving your goal immediately without having to do much of anything, which isn't exactly very fun. This is that "cultural lens" thing I've referred to in other posts. You're defining this as conflict, but it's not really conflict. It's overcoming hardship. The way you define this matters for how you think about it. > Very few people want to play "games" that are solely experiencing the environment with no real goals. So I submit the majority of gaming time on the most popular gaming platforms (mobile) are in fact exactly like this. There is no forced conflict in Neko Atsume or Candy Crush Saga. Roguelike games do model violence conflict, but largely do away with specific goals and simply let you revel in an environment that is new and surprising each time. > Because (most) people need to have goals to work towards both in real life and in games. Why does this require repeated and somewhat authentic modeling of fatal violence? > If you don't give a player goals I'm trying to work out how you're immediately equating "slaughter each other in PUBG while rolling around in a jeep for now reason" is "goals" but "build a pyramid with your friends in minecraft" is not. In terms of hours and copies sold, the later absolutely annihilates the former, and yet here you are arguing that the former is the only fun option.
  - cthalupa 7y ago
    >That's just false. One of the most popular games in human history, Minecraft, completely destroys this notion. Every resource is infinitely renewable and available in great supply. One of, if not the, most popular modes in Minecraft involves scarcity, rare materials being found near monsters, and requiring you go to what is basically the christian idea of Hell to retrieve them.

CDSlice 7y ago

> Games could recreate any universe we can imagine. Worlds without scarcity, worlds without conflict, The thing is, all that is _boring_. If there is no scarcity, there is no progression. This can be OK if there is other sources of conflict like in Kerbal Space Program sandbox mode where you have an unlimited amount of parts and Kerbals to build with but you have to overcome environmental challenges inherent in flying a ship to another planet and back. Even so there are people (like me) that find sandbox KSP not very fun because there is no progression/scarcity. If there is no conflict of any kind there is nothing preventing you from achieving your goal immediately without having to do much of anything, which isn't exactly very fun. > worlds deeply simulating fantastical aspects of an alternative universe where any experience is possible. This is a description of the environment of a game, not a game itself. Very few people want to play "games" that are solely experiencing the environment with no real goals. The only games I can think of that are like that are sandbox games like Minecraft, and TBH I don't think sandbox Minecraft really counts as a game anymore than building a stick fort does in real life. (Also, survival mode in Minecraft is very popular. And guess what it has? Conflict with the environment and players) > Weirdly, all those games end up with people pointing guns at one another. Because (most) people need to have goals to work towards both in real life and in games. If you don't give a player goals, they will make their own, often being "make the most money" or "be the best at combat." Combat as a game is far from modern, the only modern thing we've added is making it virtual combat.

KirinDave 7y ago
> The thing is, all that is _boring_. If there is no scarcity, there is no progression. That's just false. One of the most popular games in human history, Minecraft, completely destroys this notion. Every resource is infinitely renewable and available in great supply. > This can be OK if there is other sources of conflict like in Kerbal Space Program sandbox mode where you have an unlimited amount of parts and Kerbals to build with but you have to overcome environmental challenges inherent in flying a ship to another planet and back. This sentence seems contradictory. The challenge is in the doing of a thing. That's not conflict OR scarcity, it's simply your experience. And it's a fun and famous game with a huge following. > If there is no conflict of any kind there is nothing preventing you from achieving your goal immediately without having to do much of anything, which isn't exactly very fun. This is that "cultural lens" thing I've referred to in other posts. You're defining this as conflict, but it's not really conflict. It's overcoming hardship. The way you define this matters for how you think about it. > Very few people want to play "games" that are solely experiencing the environment with no real goals. So I submit the majority of gaming time on the most popular gaming platforms (mobile) are in fact exactly like this. There is no forced conflict in Neko Atsume or Candy Crush Saga. Roguelike games do model violence conflict, but largely do away with specific goals and simply let you revel in an environment that is new and surprising each time. > Because (most) people need to have goals to work towards both in real life and in games. Why does this require repeated and somewhat authentic modeling of fatal violence? > If you don't give a player goals I'm trying to work out how you're immediately equating "slaughter each other in PUBG while rolling around in a jeep for now reason" is "goals" but "build a pyramid with your friends in minecraft" is not. In terms of hours and copies sold, the later absolutely annihilates the former, and yet here you are arguing that the former is the only fun option.
- cthalupa 7y ago
  >That's just false. One of the most popular games in human history, Minecraft, completely destroys this notion. Every resource is infinitely renewable and available in great supply. One of, if not the, most popular modes in Minecraft involves scarcity, rare materials being found near monsters, and requiring you go to what is basically the christian idea of Hell to retrieve them.