I was thinking about time travel. There is a standard paradox that says if anyone goes back in time and does anything that means they would never be able to go back in time in the first place causes a contradiction and therefore time travel is not possible e.g. I go back in time and kill myself or further back and kill one of my parents then I cannot exist therefore I cannot have gone back in time. Similarly, if in the past I walked through a meadow and saw a flower, then afterwards I go back in time to just before I walked through the meadow and I pick the flower. I have both seen and cannot have seen the flower in the past! Therefore there is a contradiction and it cannot happen - time travel cannot ever work, any event that has happened cannot be undone, anyone going back in time cannot do anything, nor have any effect whatsoever on the past. The flower example is the same if there are two or many time travellers. Hence time travel is not possible.
Is there a different way to understand time such that time travel could work?
Theory of Physical and Spiritual Unity
Identity is not physical but spiritual and time travel moves the spirit backwards undoing memory. If so, then time travel is possible but of no value. Time travel would move the spirit back in time within the same physical body erasing memory as time goes backwards. There can be no contradictions because nothing changes in the physical world and the spiritual world remain intact because memory is erased. Going back beyond ones birth date results either in death/extinction or in reversion to the previous incarnation depending on which belief system the traveller has.
Theory of Infinity
Every event that has an effect on the physical world creates a parallel universe in which that event is a possibility. A time traveller exists in all of these parallel realities at the same time, and every thing any of these instances of the traveller does fragments reality. Multiple travellers cause a multiplication in the number of realities. In a few seconds the number of realities reaches infinity. Contradictory realities are not created. Infinite reality means a time traveller would end up in a random universe when they travel back in time, a universe totally different to the one they left, but still one in which everything appears consistent. Infinity means that time travellers can also travel forward in time since all possibilities exist, however the traveller would never be able to reach a specific point in any reality, every jump would be to some random reality totally different to the one they left. Time travel then is possible but can only be useful in terms of escaping from one 'reality' to another. Reality itself would then have no definite meaning.
Theory of Convergence
Time and Space are convergent on a single reality. Any event that changes the time-space continuum results in a balancing event that restores the equilibrium of time and space. This means that the time traveller creates a pocket of chaos at the point of leaving and re-entering time-space. The chaos event ripples out from the location of the traveller and reality twists and turns in order to restore the time-line and strange events surround the traveller until the space time events converge on a single reality. The danger caused by the chaos is only a danger to the traveller since the convergence will attempt to restore everything to its original state in time and space and the traveller is the cause of the disruption. Multiple travellers in the same area create greater chaos. Time travel becomes possible but would be very dangerous to the traveller if they travelled back to a time that could have any effect on the travellers future i.e. any point in the time-line of connected civilisations, back to the dawn of the species. This theory would allow very short jumps back in time that would be relatively safe, or very long jumps back in time that would be relatively safe. Anything in between would be very dangerous up until the point of convergence. It is not possible to predict the convergence 'effect', however see the following theory. This theory assumes a theory of continuum exists in time-space, a single reality is 'known' to the universe. The universe is consistent and anything that attempts to break that consistency is eliminated.
Theory of Inconsequentiality
Reality in time and space cannot be perceived. Only 'significant' events that occur in time have any effect on perceived reality. A time traveller can do anything that does not affect significant events in the continuity of time. If the traveller attempts to change anything that has a significant effect on the time stream they 'converge' i.e. as soon as they jump in time they exist simultaneously in two places at the same time, they have a partial existence in the past and the now. Anything they do that would change the time stream results in instant convergence on the 'future' time at the instant they jumped. This effect would be similar to particles that exist in two places at the same time but which converge the instant any attempt is made to detect their position, i.e. anything that would reveal the particles position results in it existing in a single position. Similarly the time traveller would converge the instant they attempted to do anything that changed the time line in a significant way. This theory assumes a theory of consequence exists in time-space, a destiny 'known' to the universe (e.g. significant events in time that has already passed are recorded in the essence of the universe). Anything that attempts to change that destiny is not allowed to happen. The universe decides what is significant not the traveller.
Saturday, 17 November 2007
Aristotle's Poetics
Some thoughts on Poetics as applied to Games.
Completeness: A plot must have a beginning (a place where the story starts that is not dependent on prior knowledge), a middle where the story happens, and an end (the resolution of the story started at the beginning).
A Game must have a start position, a middle part that plays out and an end condition that is derived from the start position.
Magnitude: A story must not be so short that it is insignificant nor must it be so long that it cannot be comprehended.
A game must not be so short or trivial that is has no substance, equally it should not be so long or complex that it cannot be comprehended (remind me why I am doing this!)
Unity: A story should be complete between the beginning and end, but may itself be part of a larger story (an epic).
A game should only represent a single 'episode' and it should be complete from beginning to end. Different episodes should form parts of different games i.e. keep the context of the story simple and try not to over complicate it by adding multiple interleaved plots.
Determinate structure: The story must contain a definite sequence of events that are essential to the story, any one of which, if removed, would render the story inconsistent. This implies that if all the non essential elements of a story are removed and there is nothing left but a beginning and an end there is no story.
A game must have a determinate structure that involves a sequence of events that join the beginning to the end, this should not be an empty sequence (must have a middle bit) or there is no game. If there is no end there is no game - there is only an experience.
Universality: The events in a story should represent what is possible within the context of the story, so the sequence of events should follow a plausible sequence and not depend on an artificial or inexplicable turn of events.
A game must have a plausible sequence of events that lead from beginning to end of game. Chaos and pure randomness should be avoided.
I liked this bit the best "The spectacle has, indeed, an emotional attraction of its own, but, of all the parts, it is the least artistic, and connected least with the art of poetry." Yes indeed! Lots of spectacle is not a substitute for good content even if it is emotionally attractive.
Completeness: A plot must have a beginning (a place where the story starts that is not dependent on prior knowledge), a middle where the story happens, and an end (the resolution of the story started at the beginning).
A Game must have a start position, a middle part that plays out and an end condition that is derived from the start position.
Magnitude: A story must not be so short that it is insignificant nor must it be so long that it cannot be comprehended.
A game must not be so short or trivial that is has no substance, equally it should not be so long or complex that it cannot be comprehended (remind me why I am doing this!)
Unity: A story should be complete between the beginning and end, but may itself be part of a larger story (an epic).
A game should only represent a single 'episode' and it should be complete from beginning to end. Different episodes should form parts of different games i.e. keep the context of the story simple and try not to over complicate it by adding multiple interleaved plots.
Determinate structure: The story must contain a definite sequence of events that are essential to the story, any one of which, if removed, would render the story inconsistent. This implies that if all the non essential elements of a story are removed and there is nothing left but a beginning and an end there is no story.
A game must have a determinate structure that involves a sequence of events that join the beginning to the end, this should not be an empty sequence (must have a middle bit) or there is no game. If there is no end there is no game - there is only an experience.
Universality: The events in a story should represent what is possible within the context of the story, so the sequence of events should follow a plausible sequence and not depend on an artificial or inexplicable turn of events.
A game must have a plausible sequence of events that lead from beginning to end of game. Chaos and pure randomness should be avoided.
I liked this bit the best "The spectacle has, indeed, an emotional attraction of its own, but, of all the parts, it is the least artistic, and connected least with the art of poetry." Yes indeed! Lots of spectacle is not a substitute for good content even if it is emotionally attractive.
Cowboys and Indians
I was thinking about the different types of games and what the rules of the games are and what they represent in an abstract way. Then I thought what type of game is a FPS? My conclusion was that it is a modern version of the old children's game 'Cowboys and Indians'. The game rules are similar; shoot the Indians in as 'cool' a way as possible. Make sure you have the biggest, best gun available and if possible dress up in a 'cool' costume while doing it. Make up a simple scenario that involves lots of Indians to shoot, but that is incidental to the main plot which is shoot Indians.
Hence, Game Theory 1: First Person Shooter = (virtual) Cowboys and Indians
Are FPS games targeted at young males by any chance?
Hence, Game Theory 1: First Person Shooter = (virtual) Cowboys and Indians
Are FPS games targeted at young males by any chance?
What is a Game?
I thought I knew what a 'game' was until I tried to define what makes a game a game and not something else.
In the end the only definition I can come up with that seems to fit is:
A game is any activity that involves play
So, then what is play?
Play is anything that is done as a physical or intellectual stimulation of an individual and is not done for any other reason
The problem is that this seems to broad. I would have thought that a game could be defined as:
A game is a directed activity that has an outcome that is dependent on the actions of the player or players of the game
It has to be a 'directed activity', meaning it must take place within a defined structure that has known boundaries and must lead from a known start state to a definable end state. Within these limits the player(s) must be able to perform actions that have a direct result on the outcome of the game. The player must know the nature of the outcome they are attempting to achieve in order to make meaningful decisions about their actions within the game.
Applying this to recognised games:
So it goes on, there appears to be a problem with the definition of 'game' or there is a problem in the way that Digital Games are regarded? I can imagine that the lack of a definable outcome to many computer based games would lead people to 'give up' playing them after a while, once the 'experience' of the play becomes the only reason to continue and the 'game' has no other qualities. Hence I can see that such 'games' can only be played once. Is it part of the Design of computer games that they cannot be replayed? Is the experience of replaying the game so similar each time that it very quickly becomes lame and tired and people give it up?
In the end the only definition I can come up with that seems to fit is:
A game is any activity that involves play
So, then what is play?
Play is anything that is done as a physical or intellectual stimulation of an individual and is not done for any other reason
The problem is that this seems to broad. I would have thought that a game could be defined as:
A game is a directed activity that has an outcome that is dependent on the actions of the player or players of the game
It has to be a 'directed activity', meaning it must take place within a defined structure that has known boundaries and must lead from a known start state to a definable end state. Within these limits the player(s) must be able to perform actions that have a direct result on the outcome of the game. The player must know the nature of the outcome they are attempting to achieve in order to make meaningful decisions about their actions within the game.
Applying this to recognised games:
- Chess - Yes this works
- Barbie Doll - No, it is not a game; No definable end state, no dependent actions
- The Sims - No, it is not a game; No definable end state, no dependent actions, there are actions which change the state but these do not have a direct result on any definable outcome.
- Space Invaders - Yes, it is a game; The defined outcome is a 'high score', the actions of the player have a direct effect on the final outcome (i.e. the score archived before you die). It is important that you die sooner or later, otherwise the high score is meaningless.
- Half Life (any FPS) - No?; The outcome is that you get to the end? but it is not a race so what is achieved by getting to the end? Does it matter in anyway that you get to the end? Not as far as I know, so it is not a game.
- World of Warcraft (any MMO) - No; There is no outcome, the actions of the player have no effect on the play field, It makes no difference whatsoever how you get from one state to the next.
So it goes on, there appears to be a problem with the definition of 'game' or there is a problem in the way that Digital Games are regarded? I can imagine that the lack of a definable outcome to many computer based games would lead people to 'give up' playing them after a while, once the 'experience' of the play becomes the only reason to continue and the 'game' has no other qualities. Hence I can see that such 'games' can only be played once. Is it part of the Design of computer games that they cannot be replayed? Is the experience of replaying the game so similar each time that it very quickly becomes lame and tired and people give it up?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)