Sunday, January 22, 2006

Game On...

topic of the day: game on!

alrighty then. today's post is about *cue scary music* ASSIGNMENT 1!!!! egads! so early on in the sem and we've already hit the first assignment. oh well *shrug*. in other news, the NM3216 checking-if-a-game-really-qualifies-as-a-game committee will convene for a meeting to discuss whether the new sport called CALVINBALL meets the requirements to be considered a game. and awaaaaaay we go...

1. the case for calvinball as a game...

the checking-if-a-game-really-qualifies-as-a-game committee has convened to discuss the fate of calvinball, a 'game' created by calvin of 'calvin and hobbes'.

to determine if such an activity can be considered a game, the committee has been asked to compare the activity against a checklist of criterias set forth by gaming expert Eric Zimmerman. we now go live to our gamer on the scene...

here's your friendly neighbourhood gamer reporting live from the NM3216 checking-if-a-game-really-qualifies-as-a-game committee meeting. apparently there has been much discussion about whether the activity called 'calvinball' can pass the criterion to be considered a game.

this gamer understands that calvinball will be judged on the following criteria:

a) whether it is voluntary
b) whether it is interactive
c) whether there are players
d) whether these players follow rules that constrain their behaviour
e) whether conflict exists
f) whether there is a quantifiable outcome

based on the description and basics of calvinball, the committee apparently has accepted that calvinball indeed is a voluntary interactive activity between players (hence meeting criterion a to c). however the committee has reached some disagreement regarding the very questionable criteria d. according to the official calvinball rulebook, one of the major clauses reads as such:

"IMPORTANT -- The following rules are subject to be changed, amended, or dismissed by any player(s) involved."

in interpreting this clause, the committee has agreed on the 2 possible meanings:

1) calvinball has rules that are not entirely binding (owing to the fact that most - if not all - are subject to change based on players' whims)

2) by saying that rules can be changed / discarded or created, the implication that the only rule is that no rules are fixed (thus possibly saying that calvinball has NO rules). if the committee were to take this stand, then calvinball would be possibly marked down for failing to meet one of the major requirements of what constitutes a game.

another rule of calvinball which has caused some disagreement among committee members is the one which states that: "Any rule above that is carried out during the course of the game may never be used again in the event that it causes the same result as a previous game. Calvinball games may never be played the same way twice"

this rule effectively states that the activity 'calvinball' when played multiple times may not be indentical in any way. however this gamer understands that such a condition may cause confusion among players of calvinball, since no one can readily agree on the basis of how it should be played.

calvinball has also been failed on criteria f), on the basis that scorekeeping is optional. this gamer understands that the option of not keeping score in a game of calvinball makes the possibility of it having a quantifiable outcome questionable. this gamer also understands that the absence of a quantifiable outcome (and thus implications of the 'game' being without purpose), essentially calvinball can be parallelled to "people running around like headless chickens" as quoted from a committee member. this would make the presence of meaningful play in such an activity questionable.

this is your friendly neighbourhood gamer signing out.

GAME OVER...

2 comments:

alex said...

Although the committee has already completed its discussion, allow me to add a possible addition to the minutes of the meeting: could it be that "people running around like headless chickens" is the objective of the game? So whoever can manipulate the rules to such an extent that the rest of the players are totally confused is the winner? Or am I completely mad? (don't answer that...)

chr1s0ng said...

ok i won't... but there IS a great temptation to... *grin*