Thursday, April 14, 2005

Mapping nongames, Parts 2 and 3 - Outcomes

(2) Variable and quantifiable outcome

Jesper Juul writes: 'For something to work as a game, the rules of the game must provide different possible outcomes'. I rekon that 'outcome' can be more than win-lose, but how much can we stretch this term? Using photoshop again, a blurry image is the 'outcome' of the blur image tool.

About the 'quantifiable' part, Juul says that it 'means that the outcome of a game is designed to be beyond discussion, meaning that the goal of Pac Man is to get many points, rather than to "move in a pretty way".'. I am not sure, but it sounds to me like it's overlapping the following feature:

(3) Valorization of the outcome

'This simply means that some of the possible outcomes of the game are better than others', states Juul. This is also the feature that open-ended simulations (according to his graphics) don't share with most games - I agree withthatand think that would be the case of many nongames. But why are those outcomes 'quatifiable'? Within the open-endness of The Sims, who decides if it's better to make a character progress or not?

Unless 'quantifiable' means that there is the notion of 'progress', independent of how ou deal and play with that.

A better example: Gonzalo Frasca's pipe simulator. It has different variable outcomes: the smoke can be darker or lighter, etc. But are they 'quantifiable'? If not, I suppose that nongames - who can work the same way - don't necessarely have the features number (2) and (3). In fact, you could face Frasca's simulation as a nongame too.

No comments:

Copyright, Chico Queiroz