ZylonBane on 30/9/2009 at 19:02
Quote Posted by Jonas Wæver
And indeed every material object in the universe can be used as a toy.
Which is exactly why this observation adds nothing to the conversation. You may as well have pointed out that toys have atoms. Yeah... sure, and so does everything else. So?
Jonas Wæver on 30/9/2009 at 19:44
Feel free to ignore it then, posting just to tell me that my post adds nothing to the conversation seems at least as useless as you consider my post to be, so uh...
Papy on 1/10/2009 at 02:49
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
Of course it is.... just not a very challenging one. The very existence of the possibility of winning or losing makes it a game by definition.
What you don't seem to get is that something which has the characteristic of a "game" can also be a "toy" depending on how it is used.
I have a question... Would you agree that the only way a game without challenge can be fun is with using it as a toy?
And I have another question... Is it possible to "lose" with a game like BioShock?
Quote Posted by Jonas Wæver
It was definitely intended that you should be able to kill everybody in TNM and still progress.
Why? Is this possibility really useful or is it just a question of principle?
Pyrian on 1/10/2009 at 19:05
Quote Posted by Papy
What you don't seem to get is that something which has the characteristic of a "game" can also be a "toy" depending on how it is used.
Video games
are toys, Papy.
Quote Posted by Papy
I have a question... Would you agree that the only way a game without challenge can be fun is with using it as a toy?
Once you dissect the semantics it's a pretty meaningless claim. It's easy to inject challenge into games that aren't inherently challenging - and vice-versa. (Or, perhaps I should say, it's easy for
other people. I don't really know why you seem to have problems with it.)
Handicaps are a remarkably common aspect of gaming. Even in
chess, better players will challenge themselves by playing against a dozen or more opponents at once.
Quote Posted by Papy
And I have another question... Is it possible to "lose" with a game like BioShock?
Is it possible to "lose" any single-player re-loadable game? No, not really. I played Bioshock when it first came out without using Vita Chambers (if I died, I reloaded). You might call that "using it as a toy", which I don't really have a problem with, as I regard video games as a subset of toys. You, in contrast, could not bear to play until you had an option to turn the Vita Chambers off - essentially you played the same game I did, except for some reason you were unable to do it on your own. I have trouble wrapping my head around the idea that for some reason it's totally different for you to have an option that makes them not work as opposed to just choosing to not use them. To me, it amounts to the same thing.
ZylonBane on 1/10/2009 at 19:12
Quote Posted by Pyrian
Video games
are toys, Papy.
Interesting. So chess is a game, but Video Chess is a toy.
This thread can only deal with one deranged lunatic at a time. Please wait your turn.
Melan on 1/10/2009 at 20:00
At this point, you are arguing definitions with a poster who is not going to be convinced, ever. :angel:
Pyrian on 1/10/2009 at 22:26
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
Interesting. So chess is a game, but Video Chess is a toy.
I didn't want to issue a blanket statement that ALL games are toys, but all the ones we're talking about certainly are.
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
This thread can only deal with one deranged lunatic at a time. Please wait your turn.
Hello pot, this is kettle, have you looked in a mirror recently?
heywood on 2/10/2009 at 00:56
I just started playing it. So far, Holy Crap! I guess I expected it to be like a typical fan mission, only longer. But so far this feels like a polished game, and an interesting and funny one too. And more DX-like than IW was and DX3 probably will be. Can't wait to sink some long hours into this.
Papy on 2/10/2009 at 02:55
Quote Posted by Pyrian
You, in contrast, could not bear to play until you had an option to turn the Vita Chambers off - essentially you played the same game I did, except for some reason you were unable to do it on your own.
In my point of view, the difference between a "toy" and a "game" is on who is deciding and controlling the rules I am following. If those rules are decided by someone else, then I would qualify what I'm doing as playing a "game". On the other hand, if I choose my own rules on the fly, whatever the reason, then I would qualify what I'm doing as playing with a "toy".
I didn't like the idea of voluntarily reloading after respawning into a Vita-Chamber because it felt exactly like missing a ball on purpose in a game of ping-pong just to keep the score "interesting". I don't want to be in control, I want to beat my opponent and I don't like to do it while being condescending. I like to play games, but I have little interest playing with a toy. I have no problem choosing my game and my handicap, but that handicap must be a part of the rule, my opponent must be aware of the handicap I'm playing with and it must be set before the beginning of the game to make what I'm doing as playing a "game".
(BTW, I will admit things are not that black and white. In order to find BioShock fun, I also chose not to save between levels. It was not an option in the menu, but somehow I was able to accept this self-imposed restriction as part of the game. Maybe this is because I view the save option really as a "let me cheat" option.)
Jonas Wæver on 2/10/2009 at 10:16
Quote Posted by Papy
What you don't seem to get is that something which has the characteristic of a "game" can also be a "toy" depending on how it is used.
I would certainly agree with this.
Quote:
I have a question... Would you agree that the only way a game without challenge can be fun is with using it as a toy?
Well what do you mean by "fun"? Would it make more sense to replace the word "fun" with "engaging"? Not all games are designed to be fun.
Quote:
Why? Is this possibility really useful or is it just a question of principle?
If you read a few posts back, I explained why the ability to kill almost everybody adds a strategic element to the game: it can pay off on the short term but cost you in the long run, or it might pay off with no drawbacks, or it might just cost you. You have to carefully choose who you want to kill at which point in the game, if you want to min-max.
