Aren't all computer games the same?

Getting back to my original question, I've given some thought to how someone earlier said something like "sports are all the same, too". And I think I agree. They all have an ball of some sort that is thrown, carried or hit in order to gain more points to win a game. But when I watch them I get interested--even excited and compelled to watch--whereas, with computer games, I'm bored and don't see any differences.

And here, I think, is the reason why. Sports are a team sport. When you watch a game, you see most of the players and their strategy. You see how they all work together to reach their goal. You see how their opponent interacts with them and their opposing strategy. You know and see what's going on but every hit, throw and blow can be different due to human failings or successes. The exact same play can be entirely different one after the other. These human actions are lead to excitement and tension if you are also a fan of one team or the other.

With computer games, it's more personal and relevant to the person playing the game. But only he knows his strategy. Only he knows what came before and how he got there. If you walk in on his game, you don't know what happened before or how he got there. And a lot of the actions are based on how the computer reacts, not human error (mis-thrown ball to the wrong base). There seems to be limited possibilities versus what happens on a field of play.

(I had much more to say while driving in the car and I just got distracted while typing this and lost my rhythm. I might come back and add to this later.)
 
Crivens said:
I hope you brought your asbestos underpants.
Can we now get back on topic or do we need to put this thread out of my misery?
Click to expand...
The quote was actually a reference to a classic from Datamation (July 1982) that well made the distinction between real programmers and "quiche eaters" as the author explained. One of the comments was that real programmers spend their time on tasks related to war ,like atomic bomb simulations and such.
 
drhowarddrfine said:
Getting back to my original question, I've given some thought to how someone earlier said something like "sports are all the same, too". And I think I agree. They all have an ball of some sort that is thrown, carried or hit in order to gain more points to win a game. But when I watch them I get interested--even excited and compelled to watch--whereas, with computer games, I'm bored and don't see any differences.

And here, I think, is the reason why. Sports are a team sport. When you watch a game, you see most of the players and their strategy. You see how they all work together to reach their goal. You see how their opponent interacts with them and their opposing strategy. You know and see what's going on but every hit, throw and blow can be different due to human failings or successes. The exact same play can be entirely different one after the other. These human actions are lead to excitement and tension if you are also a fan of one team or the other.

With computer games, it's more personal and relevant to the person playing the game. But only he knows his strategy. Only he knows what came before and how he got there. If you walk in on his game, you don't know what happened before or how he got there. And a lot of the actions are based on how the computer reacts, not human error (mis-thrown ball to the wrong base). There seems to be limited possibilities versus what happens on a field of play.

(I had much more to say while driving in the car and I just got distracted while typing this and lost my rhythm. I might come back and add to this later.)
Click to expand...

Thinking about this, it does make sense. In a ball sport, you have everything in a single field of vision, even a single focal point, a single impression. Shooting games, even real life ones like paintball, are much more dispersed, and the "ball" can teleport or be in several places. It exist only in the minds of the players, making it far more boring to watch (even paintball, where it's live action and full of jumping and running).

I never considered that, the "field of vision" thing. To have so many disparate components unified like that on a single page, so to speak.

Maybe that's why some cultures decided wars on the basis of ball games.
 
kent_dorfman766 said:
The quote was actually a reference to a classic from Datamation (July 1982) that well made the distinction between real programmers and "quiche eaters" as the author explained.
Click to expand...
I know. My reply was a nodding reference to a c't editorial from around the same time, back then when they were a real computer magazine and not a press release printing service. The editorial picked that up and argued the other side, that readability leads to better algorithms, fewer bugs and a better project. It started by both actors putting on their armor and yelling things about honor.
 
drhowarddrfine said:
Getting back to my original question, I've given some thought to how someone earlier said something like "sports are all the same, too". And I think I agree. They all have an ball of some sort that is thrown, carried or hit in order to gain more points to win a game. But when I watch them I get interested--even excited and compelled to watch--whereas, with computer games, I'm bored and don't see any differences.
Click to expand...

I think I've mentioned that analogy.

Is something same or different is in the eye of beholder, and quite a philosophical topic to partake in. Some people do not differentiate colours or sounds as well as others.

So yeah looks to me you're just not interested enough in games. Which is fine. I mean it's great because games are a waste of time usually. Especially new ones.

But to keep the discussion running, is it fair to say I don't like it without trying? Like most of the sports, the feeling is different for the participant and for the observer. Some games are rather intense, but look slow and boring. I played one for years. It was about classic battleship combat. Looking from outside its a nice game with ships but rather slow and uneventful. But it is really intense team expereience with everyone on their toes not making any tactical mistakes. So good games where participants are totally zoned in and focused look boring, but matches where noobs just charge ahead look interesting. But theyre not interesting to play, its just charge and die.

Since both sports and games root from same competetive patterns and stuff, maybe you can identify what you like in sports as a participant, and try to find some game that includes those elements. Then again, you can use the time to play actual games or sports with people...
 
lost_in_c said:
Thinking about this, it does make sense. In a ball sport, you have everything in a single field of vision
Click to expand...

Err, no.
Situational awareness is #1 element of football (association, the most popular game in the world).
Look at any game in the normal, buildup phase and check out the players that do not have the ball, how they scan around themselves, move in unison and in relation to enemy tactic and movement.

Best example is Messi, his highlight is not often the goal action shown as highlight, but the play he did when the ball was 50 meters away from him. Using awareness and positioning he would ensure he receives the ball while the defender is not on his back and second one doubling him nearby, but in the worse possible moment for them, and then he would shake them off like flies...

Messi or not, you aren't dribbling by any one or two pro defenders if the situation setup is on their side.

So it is a 2D field and player as a dot in middle has to take care of everything in 360 around him including the ball in full 3D.
 
No but I think the dr's point was about the compression of the situation in the eye of the spectator, not the players. If you are sitting on the benches, for example, watching the game, you might notice Messi jockeying for position, or the defense shifting based on the action on the offensive side of the field, even the goalkeeper do certain things. But it all prints on the same situation page, you can absorb it all into one impression because, ultimately, these are all reactions to a single focal point: the ball.

In a shooting game, there are several shifting focal points. Each shooter is reacting based on their own individual situation constantly, as well as a wider map that exists in their minds, but that they may not even see. Even if you drilled down, as a spectator, on a single shooter, you would not have a complete picture of that single shooter, why he is doing things.

The whole magic, as I understood it (and as I would have to agree) is how much of things like situational awareness you can pack into that one single page.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top