Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

POCG Berlin 2015 slides pdf

53 views

Published on

What is a simulation of a game?

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

POCG Berlin 2015 slides pdf

  1. 1. What is a simulation of a game? David Myers | Loyola University New Orleans USA Philosophy of Computer Games | Berlin 2015
  2. 2. The relationship between simulation and game is unclear. Normally define simulation; define game; compare Something different Assume one of these is true… 1. Games are not simulations. 2. Games are simulations. 3. Games and simulations are in some other relationship. ...and examine how each possibility affects a simulation of a game.
  3. 3. Why? Some advantages re defining things... ● Needn’t define game as other than a simulation, not a simulation, or something else. ● Needn’t define simulation other than semiotically, according to its relationship with that which it simulates. But... What IS the relationship between a simulation and that which it simulates? a SEMIOTIC relationship Simulation Simulated A simulation REFERENCES that which it simulates.
  4. 4. REFERENCE REFERENCE + RESEMBLANCE iconic reference the thing itself REFERENT non-iconic reference self reference simulative reference less resemblance <<< resemblance scale >>> more resemblance
  5. 5. REFERENCE REFERENCE + RESEMBLANCE iconic reference the thing itself REFERENT non-iconic reference self reference simulative reference less resemblance <<< resemblance scale >>> more resemblance The resemblance associated with the simulation must be stronger than the weakest of the resemblances available to the icon.
  6. 6. REFERENCE REFERENCE + RESEMBLANCE iconic reference the thing itself REFERENT non-iconic reference self reference simulative reference less resemblance <<< resemblance scale >>> more resemblance The resemblance associated with the simulation must be weaker than the strongest of the resemblances available to the icon.
  7. 7. REFERENCE REFERENCE + RESEMBLANCE iconic reference the thing itself REFERENT non-iconic reference self reference simulative reference How to construct a simulation #1 | Add resemblance. Start with a reference; add resemblance until you get to a simulation. less resemblance <<< resemblance scale >>> more resemblance How to construct a simulation.
  8. 8. REFERENCE REFERENCE + RESEMBLANCE iconic reference the thing itself REFERENT non-iconic reference self reference simulative reference less resemblance <<< resemblance scale >>> more resemblance How construct a simulation #2 | Subtract resemblance. Start with a referent; subtract resemblance until you get to a simulation. How to construct a simulation.
  9. 9. REFERENCE REFERENCE + RESEMBLANCE iconic reference the thing itself REFERENT non-iconic reference self reference simulative reference How to get to a simulation #1 | Add resemblance. Start with a reference; add resemblance until you get to a simulation. How to get to a simulation #2 | Subtract resemblance. Start with a referent; subtract identity until you get to a simulation. Exact resemblance is the goal of the emulation, perhaps, but not the simulation. A simulation is something other than that which it simulates.
  10. 10. An important consequence. IF a simulation is a simulative reference. AND IF a simulative reference is something other than that which it simulates. THEN a simulation of a simulation is a simulative reference that is something other than a simulative reference. or >>> PARADOX <<<
  11. 11. So, assume one of these must be true… 1. Games are not simulative references. 2. Games are simulative references. 3. Games and simulative references are in some other relationship. ...and then, determine how each adjudicates a simulation of a game (SoG). ● scenario #1: Simulation of a Game = NOT GAME ● scenario #2: Simulation of a Game = PARADOX ● scenario #3: Simulation of a Game = SOMETHING OTHER than #1 or #2 Which is these is most likely and compelling?
  12. 12. So, assume one of these must be true… 1. Games are not simulative references. 2. Games are simulative references. 3. Games and simulative references are in some other relationship. ...and then, determine how each adjudicates a simulation of a game (SoG). ● scenario #1: Simulation of a Game = NOT GAME ● scenario #2: Simulation of a Game = PARADOX ● scenario #3: Simulation of a Game = SOMETHING OTHER than #1 or #2 Which is these is most likely and compelling?
  13. 13. What is a simulation of a game? (a test case)
  14. 14. REFERENCE REFERENCE + RESEMBLANCE iconic reference REFERENT non-iconic reference self reference simulative reference less resemblance <<< resemblance scale >>> more resemblance How to construct a simulation of DOOM. DOOM 8-bit, 256 color DOOM 2-bit, grayscale How construct a simulation #2 | Subtract resemblance. Start with a referent; subtract resemblance until you get to a simulation.
  15. 15. Unfortunately, grayscale DOOM example is not entirely persuasive. A simulation of a specific game, like DOOM, may well have different consequences than a simulation of games more generally. Because, the IDENTITY of a specific game may be determined by specific characteristics (e. g., color) other than those more general characteristics determining the IDENTITY of games more generally.
  16. 16. For instance, 2-bit grayscale DOOM is NOT a specific GAME i. e., it is NOT 8-bit color DOOM Yet, 2-bit grayscale DOOM remains a game more generally. It would be nice at this point to offer an example of a simulation of a game more generally, to see if THAT sort of simulation of a game remains a game. Unfortunately (again), difficulties associated with determining the characteristics of games more generally (i. e., defining games) are exactly what this analysis intends to avoid.
  17. 17. In this analysis, we are stuck with defining games ONLY on the basis of these three relationships between games and simulations. 1. Games are not simulations. 2. Games are simulations. 3. Games are neither of the above. What can we do with these three? Let’s take a shot.
  18. 18. IF a game is not a simulation, THEN a simulation of a game is something other than a game. >>> NOT GAME But… DOOM is a game. Grayscale DOOM is simulation of DOOM. And grayscale DOOM is a game. And… IF a [simulation of a game] is GAME, THEN a game is something other than a game = NOT GAME. So… a game is [GAME and NOT GAME]? SCENARIO #1: Games are not simulations.
  19. 19. IF a game is a simulation, THEN a simulation of a game is a simulation of a simulation. >>> PARADOX But… DOOM is a game. Grayscale DOOM is simulation of DOOM. And grayscale DOOM is NOT PARADOX. And… IF a [simulation of a game] IS NOT PARADOX, THEN a game is PARADOX. So… a game is [PARADOX and NOT PARADOX]? SCENARIO #2: Games are simulations.
  20. 20. IF a game is neither a simulation nor something other than a simulation, THEN what is it? Among the more intriguing possibilities... IF a simulation is a simulative reference AND a simulative reference references something other than itself. THEN perhaps a game is a simulative reference that references itself. Perhaps, in this way, a game is a partial or broken or UR-simulation... neither a simulation nor something other than a simulation. Perhaps a game is a simulation of a simulation. SCENARIO #3: Games are something else.
  21. 21. IF a game is a simulation of a simulation, THEN are games more generally PARADOX ??? Some, as it turns out, have already made this claim. Games in the classic sense... exhibit a basic feature which cannot but puzzle us: a true paradoxy... In other words, the players must first agree amicably as partners to have a game of chess in order that each may endeavour to defeat the other. (Kolnai, 1966, 103–4) Yet while the juxtaposition of competition and collaboration within games is admittedly oppositional, it is not a true paradox in that it is not ‘an inescapable contradiction’. Suits claims that the aims of playing a game trump all fleeting discord within a game. Ultimately, the force majeure of Suits’s lusory attitude sweeps away claims such as Kolnai’s as parochial and irrelevant. (Myers, 2012, 3­4) SCENARIO #3: Games are something else.
  22. 22. Certainly, a game as a simulation of a simulation would have a unique referential function: A game would be an iconic and self-referencing form of a simulative reference. GAME From the paper… For a simulative reference that is not a game, self-reference of this sort results in paradox. However, when a game references itself as something other than itself, there seems to be a paradox escape clause: the game’s lusory nature. Insofar as this lusory nature resolves any essential paradoxy of games (Suits, for instance, thinks it does), we can use it here to resolve this third possibility of a simulation of a game as SOMETHING ELSE. SCENARIO #3: Games are something else.
  23. 23. How to (speculatively) construct a simulation of a game more generally. REFERENCE REFERENCE + RESEMBLANCE iconic reference REFERENT self reference simulative reference Game a simulation of a simulation a simulation of a game SUBTRACT lusory nature
  24. 24. REFERENCE REFERENCE + RESEMBLANCE iconic reference REFERENT self reference simulative reference Game a simulation of a simulation a simulation of a game Something other than lusory = NOT LUSORY Something other than [a simulation of a simulation] = NOT PARADOX Something other than [a game] = NOT GAME SUBTRACT lusory nature How to (speculatively) construct a simulation of a game more generally.
  25. 25. So, given these three possibilities… ● scenario #1: Simulation of a Game = NOT GAME ● scenario #2: Simulation of a Game = PARADOX ● scenario #3: Simulation of a Game = SOMETHING OTHER than #1 or #2 Which is these is most likely and compelling? Based on this analysis, #3: SoG = SOMETHING OTHER (e. g., NOT LUSORY) However, regardless of any speculation regarding this last scenario, this analysis favors rejecting those scenarios in which games are either most essentially equivalent to simulations, or most essentially distinct from them.
  26. 26. What is a simulation of a game? David Myers | Loyola University New Orleans USA Philosophy of Computer Games | Berlin 2015
  27. 27. What is a simulation of a game? David Myers | Loyola University New Orleans USA Philosophy of Computer Games | Berlin 2015

×