Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 4996283" data-attributes="member: 22779">I disagree.  ((I also assume you mean "but not the game framework))  You can certainly know the outcome of the game and still qualify as a game.  I think the problem here though is you have split out game and framework.  "Get the high score" is not part of the Pac Man game.  The game does not reward you in any way for getting the high score (other than perhaps posting it I suppose, but, that's not a requirement).  The "framework" of pacman is that you will endlessly circle around the board, chomping dots until you lose.  That's it.  That is 100% known at the beginning of the game.In the same way, a game where players can declare the game over at any point in time is still a game.  I'm not sure why you separate out "framework" by which I take it you mean mechanics from the "game" which consists of the interaction of the mechanics and the players.I still deny that.  The resolution of the game does not have to be affected by the players in order to have a game.  There is nothing you can do that will prevent you from losing at Pac Man.  You will lose.  Every single time you play.  No choices you make will change that.  Yet, I would argue that Pac Man remains a game.Now that I agree with.  There must be some sort of goal in order to have a game.  However, goal does not have to be related in any way to the resolution of a specific event within the game.  If the goal is simply, "Keep it going as long as you can", then the game itself is only tangentially related to that goal.  Everyone is invested in continuing the game, not because they want to resolve any specific element or condition of the game, but because they want to keep the game going.  Presumably because keeping the game going is fun.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Well, I think I've answered that.  You seem to be fixated on the idea that there absolutely must be an unknown resolution in order to have a game.  I disagree.  The resolution can be known at the outset of the game, and still have a game.  Going back to the sports analogy.  Sure, I might know the final score of the game, but, I can be interested in all sorts of other elements that aren't related to who actually won the game.  Did someone break a record during the game?  Was someone injured?  How were the umpire's calls?  What errors were made?  Like I said, I can play Frodo, know absolutely that I will drop the ring into the mountain, and yet still have a game between points A and Z, despite the fact that A and Z are absolutely known to me.</blockquote>

Verification