Better safe than circle


Okay, here’s a little thought. Computer games differ from casually played analogue games in the sense that in the former case the computer processes the game rules while in the latter the processing is performed by human brains and negotiated through language etc. (as I believe Jesper has said somewhere).
This means that when you play a computer games online, say Age of Kings, no matter how you choose to perceive the game (as visual art, as Western mental imperialism etc.) you are still going to lose (or win) in a very concrete sense. In the eyes of the player community, and in the eyes of the game server, you’ve lost or won regardless of the way you perceive the game activity.

The interesting difference here is between players themselves processing the rules and some external system processing the rules (whether a CPU, a team of referees or whatever).
But, some esteemed colleagues object, by drawing this line you (“me” that is) are proposing that computer games are pristine, stable systems while in fact players take great effort to disrupt and “break” the game. I disagree with this objection. First of all, the vast majority of Age of Kings players conform completely to the rules of the game (and even the spirit of the game).
Those who try to break the game are statistical anomalies (and whether we care primarily about anomalies or majorities is a question of taste and disciplinary background).
But even for those players who really do subvert (if you will) the game the rigid nature of computer game rules is still interesting to keep in mind. I find it quite probable that this rigidness inspires deviance. This deviance may be motivated by A) a general dislike of rigid orders and/or B) a feeling that if some autocratic sovereign wants complete un-democratic control of the gamespace then surely anything not directly disallowed by the game code is allowed (or morally defensible). In the latter case the very rigidness of the computer game rules may go a long way towards undermining sportsmanship as opposed to the analogue (non-tournament) game situation where players cannot help but be aware that they are deeply responsible for upholding the game.
Computer game rules disenfranchise the player.

Killing in the name of…


Yep, GTA San Andreas is out and pushing aging consoles to the limit. As so often before my experience with single-player progression games is limited to brief experimentation but I did manage to drive a bicycle in front of a speeding train and drive recklessly to the inspiring, lofty tones of Rage Against the Machine. I am in no position to comment, but this muscle and fat thing… why?

Update: Check out the more thoughtful thoughts of one Mr. Silencio, AKA the Dr-to-be M. Sicart (or is that “Scart”?).

Same planet, different servers

I stumbled into Guild Wars the other night enjoying the thrill of almost meeting Ren and actually (re)slaying some undead aided by Mirjam’s black magic.
And to think that I finally found a lighthouse. For some time that has been my personal quest whenever I enter a virtual world – to search for lighthouses. Hey, it gives you something to do.

7h3 d1574n7 50und 0f 7rump375

So they thought they could mainstream gaming, study it and lay bare all its secrets? Thought they could clean it up and make room for newcomers who would be judged on their merits alone? Well, they thought wrong (‘they’ often do).
As always, the old-timers find ways of remaining exclusive. As is often the case this happens by inventing slang or even entire codes that only the initiated can negotiate safely. Leetspeek had to happen.
Here’s this blog in Leetspeek, courtesy of The l33t Surfer.