A tiny metagame written for the Global Game Jam 2014. It is the third, and only completed, of the three concept games I made.
Pygame.org account Comments
Rag'd 2014-01-27 16:15:45
Please, can you say more about this project ?
Ian Mallett 2014-01-29 02:57:38
The GGJ page for this game is here: http://globalgamejam.org/2014/...
Do you have a specific question? See also answer to Jeremy Gagnier.
Jeremy Gagnier 2014-02-01 21:03:44
Wait so you made a video of you writing code that would play the video of you writing the code? How is this a game?
Jeremy Gagnier 2014-02-01 21:06:05
Ian Mallett 2014-02-02 23:52:09
No, it's a program that plays an overlaid video of how it was made, then "steps inside itself". The theme was "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are.". Games are only games if we ascribe them to be--so it's perfectly fine if you don't think it's a game. That's exactly the point: we see things the way we choose to perceive them. In that sense, the program meets the theme in the purest way possible.
Jeremy Gagnier 2014-02-04 18:55:35
"Games are only games if we ascribe them to be..." That is not actually true... When it comes to perception it doesn't matter much what an individual thinks, only what is generally accepted. Your program doesn't qualify as a game because it doesn't have any user interactions... Just because you or someone else might perceive it to be a game doesn't make it one. We usually call people like that delusional.
Ian Mallett 2014-02-04 21:14:28
The fact that the definition of a game is influenced by the player's agency should be exceedingly obvious, since (whether through passive perception or direct control) the two interact. So yes: perception matters. Pick any activity, and there are people who play at it versus people who work at it. As it happens, my (personal) definition of a game is something that's fun--so I don't think it's a game either.
But none of that's actually relevant because like I said, "it's perfectly fine if you don't think it's a game. That's exactly the point". I actually don't care whether you think it's a game or not--the point is that you do or don't. It's a reflection of your tastes and definitions.
Jeremy Gagnier 2014-02-05 21:33:49
"The fact that the definition of a game is influenced by the player's agency..." So you're telling me that the definition of a word (in this instance the word game) can vary from person to person? That's not how language works... Either you have the same definition as everyone else or you're wrong... Also working at something like getting the next tier of armor in a game doesn't make it work, it's still a game, regardless of whether or not you find it fun.
Ian Mallett 2014-02-05 22:03:32
First, the first dictionary definition of "game" I looked up reads "an amusement". This definition is both typical and fully-consistent with my description. Second, yes definitions of words can vary from person to person. What you're trying to describe is called "prescriptivist linguistics", which is in contrast to "descriptive linguistics". Both are valid forms of morphology, but neither is more correct than the other. Third, you completely missed my point--so let me restate it: people enjoy different things, so what constitutes "an amusement" is different for different people.
Jeremy Gagnier 2014-02-06 00:02:01
I like how you took two words from a definition and claimed it to be the entire definition. "an amusement" is not actually the definition of a game, there are certain other requirements. A game must involve play of some sort, which requires action. You stated earlier that passive perception qualifies as an interaction, which is incorrect because an interaction requires an action from a person to affect the state of the program, or at least invoke some sort of change. Opinions can change between people, but a definition is concrete in a sense (obviously it will change over a long period of time). Your statement about prescriptive linguistics and descriptive linguistics doesn't actually apply at all... Prescriptive linguistics just has to do with things like political correctness and what constitutes proper speech.
Ian Mallett 2014-02-06 02:40:44
I claimed "an amusement" is an example of a typical definition, not the definition. The immediate result is that games don't require physical interaction, although they typically do. And no; prescriptivist linguistics prescribes what definitions should be and descriptivist linguistics describes the various meanings they actually take. I study linguistics; I know about this, but you obviously don't believe me, so look it up.
Look, we can cavil word definitions and metadefinitions all day, but do you have a point with any of this? I genuinely can't tell whether you're continually insulting me, ignoring what I'm saying, and refusing to think about things in general rather than in specific out of ignorance or out of spite, but either way it's a waste of both of our times. I've even tried to be reasonably polite about all this. I've tried to explain this as best as I can. I've made analogies and brought in external sources to clarify and back this up--and all you can do, it seems, is speak in absolutes about how I'm unconditionally wrong.
I realize my position is nonstandard, but I feel that that's why it's interesting. However, it has obviously come to a point where you're not willing to even try understanding it anymore. If that position changes significantly, let me know and we can try this again.
Jeremy Gagnier 2014-02-06 03:53:27
When it comes to using specific examples the point is to try and make you realize that saying things like the definition of a game varies from person to person is ridiculous. A definition is made to be static. Interpretations may be different, but that's not the same thing at all.
I disagree that "an amusement" is an adequate definition of a game, and disagree that it's typical, especially since I haven't been able to find anything remotely similar in some online searches. Of course, that's just opinion not actually fact.
I'm not trying to insult you, I just can't understand how you can believe that definitions can be different for each person. That's like me saying that I won this argument because my definition for all of the words you used means that you were typing utter nonsense. That would be a legitimate argument in your line of thinking.
I actually am interested in your counter arguments because I felt like I made pretty clear points. I didn't know about prescriptive or descriptive linguistics, and it is interesting but I think you're overstating what it actually implies here. Descriptive linguistics doesn't actually allow each individual to have their own set of defenitions, but it does allow words to have different meanings in unique contexts or other situations involving small groups of people.
In terms of time wasting, I actually don't mind... The huge wall of text on the other hand is a bit unappealing and I apologize for that... Also, just as a final remark I felt exactly the same in terms of you not attempting to understand or even read what I wrote, but that happens in every argument, especially when both people are not on the same page and arguing unrelated things.
Ian Mallett 2014-02-06 04:21:37
Hmmm okay then. I might be able to work with that. But since this has a lot of potential to continue without limit, email me?