LEGO Mindstorms EV3 -
Pretend it's for the kids. We both know better.
|
Sunday, 18 March 2018
quote [ The idea of perpetual growth underpins much of our society, but games seem uniquely committed to it as a medium. It can be seen everywhere from the chase for highscores to the consumerist dreams of The Sims, who buy better things in order to enjoy better lives. Perhaps gaming’s roots in the toy and consumer electronics industries are one reason for the emphasis on growth; the constant hankering for bigger, faster, more. We climb the tech tree, we level up, we collect bigger and bigger weapons because of a widespread assumption that growth is an inherent good. ]
Starts with reviewing a game expansion, ends with contemplating over the side effects of games teaching growth and power as history lessons. Pretty reflective comment section, too.
More on the said game roots on The Digital Antiquarian: The Game of Everything, Part 1: Making Civilization and here's more background on the definition of "eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, and eXterminate" (4X).
Another contribution by Chris Crawford and Jason Rohrer talking about wargames and storytelling.
|
Comments
 |
cb361 said @ 11:17am GMT on 18th Mar
I remember being disappointed when I found that the "Wonder" score in Age of Empires didn't reflect my people's curiosity and awe at the natural world, but how many colosseums they had built.
But far more computer games, I think, do deal with the decline and fall of civilisation. Just not empire-builder games. So long as you remember not to research "Decadence" in the tech-tree. |
|
Paracetamol said[1] @ 12:38pm GMT on 18th Mar
[Score:2 Funsightful]
You're right – Dwarf Fortress' motto remains: Losing is fun
|
|
mechavolt said @ 12:41pm GMT on 18th Mar
I see no problems with the Civilization model of growth, it matches our own scenario quite well. In a closed system, there are only a finite amount of resources to go around. In that scenario, the most advantageous strategy for a group is to outgrow its competitors. If you can outpace your competitors until you're the only player, then you have 2 main options now that you're in control of the finite resources: 1) begin rationing them at a sustainable level, or 2) use them in an attempt to break out of the closed system (asteroid mining, planetary colonization, etc.).
|
|
Jodan said @ 2:37pm GMT on 18th Mar
I agree that the growth and scramble aren't that problematic. I found that Civ left out failure to a bad decision rather than to some random occurrence. I found that games like EU4 were better for this you still have that emphasis on growth and competition. There is randomness as well, and not just in the distribution of barbarians. In CiV you can make a bad decision, in EU4 an aly can loose their ruler in a freak accident start making bad decisions and have lower capabilities, while a comet goes over you finely crafted armies who get wiped by circumstance. There is an emphasis on growth but it is not guaranteed, and sometimes picking up the pieces can be fun and rewarding.
|
|
Ussmak said @ 7:55pm GMT on 18th Mar
[Score:-3 Boring]
filtered comment under your threshold |
|
cb361 said @ 9:00pm GMT on 18th Mar
[Score:2]
Good statement, but not pretentious enough. 2/5 Beards.
|
|
arrowhen said @ 11:38pm GMT on 18th Mar
[Score:1 Underrated]
(+1 Disagree. I think you're wrong, but I don't think you deserve downmods gor expressing an unpopular opinion in a slightly cranky manner.)
I think any kind of entertainment (and even "just games" are still entertainment) says something about the people who made it and the culture that made *them*. It might not always be a big philosophical statement or even necessarily an *intentional* one, but sometimes offhand remarks are the most telling. |
Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment,
then click the reply link on that comment instead]You must be logged in to comment on posts.
