by Jonahbone63
slaapgraag wrote:
by russ
FWIW I've seen a perhaps similar (or the same?) concept discussed occasionally in the Abstracts forum, namely that some games feel "organic" (in some sense of natural growth, in contrast to some sense of ad hoc artificiality, I think, or that a game's complexity and interesting behavior emerges "naturally" and implicitly from its simple minimalist rules, instead of game behaviors being explicitly defined/initiated by a lot of rules that explicitly cause/create those game phenomena. Similar to "emergent complexity" etc.by slaapgraag
Reading this thread, I'm not sure I understand what Jonah means with 'aliveness'. I've had chessgames in which the strongest, hidden, move was very beautyfull - but imho that only occur in moments in chess - not during the whole game. Several games - from Inis even to 'you're bluffing'- really sucked me so far into this game, I was almost dizzy finding myself in 'the real outside world' when the game ended. A lot of games have building aspects - from Catan to Java. (I must say Eufraat&Tigris is one of my alltime favourites - and Go my all-time #1 (though Im bad at it)). I think all games have 'best moves dictated by the game so far'. So what makes a game alive? Is that a sequence of 'best moves dictated by the game' (and even beautyfull?) . Isn't Twixt 'alive' then? Is alivenes eazier for abstract games?