March 04, 2012, 18:30:56 |
#203
You see, that's exactly what we're talking about, you cannot grasp on the concept of what is an essence. Let's get to the facts.
And not only that, but a business model implies there should be Profit for the game to exist, it should make all the income surpass the outcome, but it doesn't necessarily implies it should maximize profit. Maximizing of profit is just one of the many business models, and this one in particular is called aggressive business. And for a game to exist in the industry it needs to be in a business model, but not necessarily on a aggressive business model.
If you know anything about games you know that as a media they can make high abstraction through the implication of the rules and the use of symbols, and so, games can be an art form. And you should be very aware that art and aggressive business models usually don't mix very well, because high artistic quality does not necessarily imply in maximum profit margin, and that's why the artist will usually be fighting with its publisher. That's why you will see very good music, books, movies and games that despite having high artistic quality don't have huge commercial success, and the opposite as well.
But aggressive business model is not the only way to fund a game and obtain profit in the gaming industry, you just need profit and nothing else, and you can attain profit without violating the essence of games. A cash shop is not needed for a game to be economically viable. There are even games funded with Crowdfunding for christ's sake.
And yes the definition of a game does exist and I'll show it in the second point
What happens is that there are games that don't have an explicit specified objective, but the objective is still there. These are called Losing or Infinite Games, games where winning is not explicitly specified and so the definition is on the behavior of the game itself. If you notice, when many Atari games did not had a specified Winning situation, the player was kept on the game with the objective produce the highest amount of points possible till they eventually failed to complete the objective (continue to achieve points) or give up (voluntary abstention from the set of rules), and then the player would enter on a losing situation, where the game would stop and reset. This is a losing game, a game where the player will eventually lose, and winning is an state instead of a point. When there are two human sides locked in a infinite game, the loser will be the player who gives up first, since endurance is now implied on the rules. Even Soccer, if it did not have time limit or goal ceiling, would not end till one of the teams gives up. And that would still be a game because you still have Winning and Losing situations.
This happens specifically because Winning and Losing is a natural concept when you define the concept of Objective, and in a game the objective will always be there, though sometimes it will be implicit, it is still there, because it is created by the implications of arbitrary rules.
If you don't think so, then just find me an example which fits with this exact definition and cannot be called a game.
Also, selling items acquired with real world currency is equal to acquire in-game currency through real world currency as a source, it DOES violates the essence of gaming.
And by the way if I was going to submit this text to an academic circle I would fix all the grammatic errors and deviations from scientific writing norms, but I'm on a forum trying to dialogue with the devs. I'm getting my point across? Yes. Then the job is done. Or do you think dialectical discussions were impossible before the holy institution of science came to normalize the poor speakers?
This post has been edited by Yechnagoth - March 04, 2012, 20:07:50.
Quote
There is a business aspect to a game, and that aspect will force the company to violate "gaming essence" in some way. Then again, that's a subjective concept to begin with because a definitive definition of a game is abstract and a "perfect example" of a definiton of a game doesn't exist
No, there is a business aspect to the Game Industry, not games themselves. The business aspect implies a game should generate profit, because it can only exist on business models if it has profit, and that is it. However, designing games with the purpose of profit is only one out of the many reasons a game might be created, or do you really think kids choosing to play hide-and-seek or creating their own version of hide-and-seek is a choice of monetary profit? Business models has nothing to say about the general nature of games.
And not only that, but a business model implies there should be Profit for the game to exist, it should make all the income surpass the outcome, but it doesn't necessarily implies it should maximize profit. Maximizing of profit is just one of the many business models, and this one in particular is called aggressive business. And for a game to exist in the industry it needs to be in a business model, but not necessarily on a aggressive business model.
If you know anything about games you know that as a media they can make high abstraction through the implication of the rules and the use of symbols, and so, games can be an art form. And you should be very aware that art and aggressive business models usually don't mix very well, because high artistic quality does not necessarily imply in maximum profit margin, and that's why the artist will usually be fighting with its publisher. That's why you will see very good music, books, movies and games that despite having high artistic quality don't have huge commercial success, and the opposite as well.
But aggressive business model is not the only way to fund a game and obtain profit in the gaming industry, you just need profit and nothing else, and you can attain profit without violating the essence of games. A cash shop is not needed for a game to be economically viable. There are even games funded with Crowdfunding for christ's sake.
And yes the definition of a game does exist and I'll show it in the second point
Quote
Then again, that's a subjective concept to begin with because a definitive definition of a game is abstract and a "perfect example" of a definiton of a game doesn't exist. ...Wrong. Not all games have a win or lose. This is an example of why a game is essentially an abstract concept that can't be definitively defined.
Nope, all games do have a winning or losing situation. A game will always have an objective implied by the set of arbitrary rules, and the eventual fail to achieve or maintain the objective implies in losing, the termination of the game through the set of rules.
What happens is that there are games that don't have an explicit specified objective, but the objective is still there. These are called Losing or Infinite Games, games where winning is not explicitly specified and so the definition is on the behavior of the game itself. If you notice, when many Atari games did not had a specified Winning situation, the player was kept on the game with the objective produce the highest amount of points possible till they eventually failed to complete the objective (continue to achieve points) or give up (voluntary abstention from the set of rules), and then the player would enter on a losing situation, where the game would stop and reset. This is a losing game, a game where the player will eventually lose, and winning is an state instead of a point. When there are two human sides locked in a infinite game, the loser will be the player who gives up first, since endurance is now implied on the rules. Even Soccer, if it did not have time limit or goal ceiling, would not end till one of the teams gives up. And that would still be a game because you still have Winning and Losing situations.
This happens specifically because Winning and Losing is a natural concept when you define the concept of Objective, and in a game the objective will always be there, though sometimes it will be implicit, it is still there, because it is created by the implications of arbitrary rules.
If you don't think so, then just find me an example which fits with this exact definition and cannot be called a game.
Quote
This is the only section that is even relevant to the original topic. This section ignores the fact that there are factors beyond designing the game. The purpose of most game makers is to make profit. Yes, they are also designing a game, but they are designing it with the intention of getting something out of it. And on that note, you are talking about an ethical concept as a forced definition of "entertainment" from games; the reason why someone buys a game can not be defined with a singular definition as you stated. Personally, I play (And planning on subscribe) Wakfu is because I fell in love with the game mechanics, and I find it intersting. Frankly speaking, if I were to apply your concept, I wouldn't subscribe to Wakfu because it doesn't require much skill. The point is that you can not definitively and empirically define what a game should and should not have through "gaming ethics" because the experience of a game can not be universially defined. And a last note that I should point out is that you completely ignored in-game economy in this situation. The items are tradeable (As I mentioned before), so the advantage is not an "unobtainable" power. Does that mean that the player has to make an in-game investment to compensate for not paying? Yes. But does that mean that they are permanently handicapped? No.
What the hell?! Did you even read my whole post or just the parts you think you have arguments against? I did not say a person engages in gaming with the purpose of skill. I explicitly and clearly said a person engages in gaming with the purpose of JOY: “the player does that in expectation to find some sense of joy while playing the game.“ Did you just not read this part? I did not go deep on why some person engages in gaming because this has nothing to do with the nature of games. A player engages in gaming because it might be fun, however fun is a completely subjective and metamorphic concept and a game being fun to someone does not mean a game being good or righteous. People can find fun and joy in anything, even in completely wrongful actions, a game being fun to someone doesn't prove anything about the nature of games, only about the choice to engage in gaming. And I'm not discussing why someone engages in gaming, I'm discussing why some decisions from the industry violates the essence of gaming, if there are people who find it fun and why its a whole different thing.
Also, selling items acquired with real world currency is equal to acquire in-game currency through real world currency as a source, it DOES violates the essence of gaming.
And by the way if I was going to submit this text to an academic circle I would fix all the grammatic errors and deviations from scientific writing norms, but I'm on a forum trying to dialogue with the devs. I'm getting my point across? Yes. Then the job is done. Or do you think dialectical discussions were impossible before the holy institution of science came to normalize the poor speakers?
This post has been edited by Yechnagoth - March 04, 2012, 20:07:50.
