Game Development Reference
In-Depth Information
simulation, you can change the rate of loss to study the
effects
of improving the gear
on the overall system, even if you don't know how to actually improve the gear itself.
When a game includes a feature in which the avatar carries cash around, it seldom
keeps track of the exact numbers and denominations of the notes and coins. It sim-
ply says the avatar has $25.37 and leaves it at that. The inner details about the cash
have been simplified out because the player doesn't care and it doesn't affect the
rest of the mechanics. Both scientific and game simulations do this kind of thing all
the time—games more frequently. Scientists and engineers also tend to abstract dif-
ferent features than game developers do, and for different reasons. A scientist wants
an accurate outcome, while a game developer wants an enjoyable one.
simulations can lie
The writer and semiotician Umberto eco once famously wrote that semiotics is “the
theory of the lie” (1976). What he meant is that signs are anything that potentially can be
used to lie, and therefore by extension semiotics concerns itself with lies as well as truth.
simulations, too, can be used to lie to people, either innocently or intentionally. Game
scholar ian Bogost warns us that no matter how realistic a simulation might seem, it is
always to some extent subjective (2006, p. 98-99). The process of abstraction creates the
subjectivity, because the designer has made a decision about what to exclude. so, no
matter how accurate a simulation seems, you should never mistake it for the real thing,
and always be aware of the choices the creators of the simulation made—and
why
they
made them.
an interesting example is the game
America's Army
. This multiplayer first-person shooter
game goes to great lengths to appear as realistic as possible. it even requires you to go
through weapons training before you are allowed to go on “real” missions. The game
was published by the U.s. army, and obviously they have a stake in the game seeming
realistic. after all, they use the game to recruit people into the army. however, you can
learn a great deal about this game by comparing the game's visual appearance with real-
ity. For example, in the game you don't see much blood or gore. real combat is a messy
and shocking affair that nobody would stomach easily. But that's not the message the
U.s. army wants to convey when trying to recruit people.
more interesting is the choice to create a multiplayer game in which teams of players can
fight against each other but at the same time to represent both sides as american sol-
diers. as a player, you see yourself and your teammates as american soldiers, while you
see the other team as insurgents. at the same time, the
other
team sees
themselves
as
american soldiers and see
you
as the insurgents. Understandably, the U.s. army did not
want to publish a game that people could potentially use to train in fighting american
soldiers. as a result, the gameplay is essentially symmetric: Both sides have american
equipment and use american tactics. This is in stark contrast with the asymmetric
warfare that the game
claims
to depict (americans fighting insurgents). For this reason,
America's Army
cannot train prospective soldiers in counterinsurgent tactics.
