Amen to that!
I do share Karlis's concerns with lots of these hermetically sealed
games - where non-game logic space becomes a kind of inconvenient
distraction from the false goals and rules set up in gameland.
However, games are often wonderful ways of modelling or extending
existing aptitudes and behaviors that do exactly what you're talking
about, Karlis - become more than symbolic and actually break down the
simplicity of self-imposed rules and structures that exist in the
so-called 'real' world ;) - and offer means of escape.
In a recent meeting of the Faculty of Problem Solving we discussed a few
of these games - and made a little list:
triolectic football: http://aaa.t0.or.at/documents/aaarules.htm
these are all games that have shifting alleigences, changing rules, and
structures that adapt and react to environmental factors as well as to
the intentions and desires of the players.
that's the problem, then, with lots of the techno-centric
'location-based' games - they're hermetic, rather than adaptive, and
can only simplify existing spatial / interpersonal relations, rather
than allow these relations to extend, split, twist and reform - which is
why so many people are into playing 'real life'. I'm interested to know
which of these new fangled 'location games' manage to pull off this
On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 06:03:24PM +0300, marc wrote:
> Below is a polemic missive, if not the beginnings of a manifesto, from
> "Uncle Karlis" against location-based games (like Battlebots