Extended fights are basically a battle of attrition, just not bullshit. Also, we don't play video games because they represent war. People like to watch/play games because it's a dramatized version of life, in which there is a goal, or a set of goals, winners, losers, and a prize. It's a lot more complicated than that, but I would really have to do more research to give a proper explanation and I don't feel like it.
You basically just described war I'm done hahahaha This is too good. You think we play games for those reasons, and your not enitrely wrong, but your not making the connection to the deep seeded reasons we're actually drawn to them. There is a reason why male's make up the vast % of FPS gamers, and it goes much deeper then cultural reasons. It comes down to our biology and our corrupted/sinful human nature. Games are War.
Your first paragraphs are real good - each sport or game is getting at a different angle for the concept of War. Sport is a heightening or abstraction and re-integration -> concretization of War, at least in the Anglo-Saxon conception of “sport”. I recently had a really interesting discussion about this, and in some languages - some cultures, therefore - sport is directly tied to the act of abstracted war, but to anything that might be considered part of what makes you ready for abstracted war. For example, in French, playing on an amateur soccer team and running alone at 6AM for 30 minutes are both considered 'sport'. Yes, insofar as these games represent a given area of life. Life itself is not a "game", unless you treat it not just as a war of attrition, but also as a war of conquest - because there are always two sides in a war, at least. This is where the conceptualization of sport as a solo exercise comes in, but that's not totally relevant here. Think of it this way: if your metaphysics are that reality (one's subjective life experience) is a 'goal-oriented structure with winners and losers from which is generated a set of hierarchies' (please for the love of god listen to me here), then everything you do is going to be stacked up against how it gets you to win or lose and rise to the top of a given hierarchy - if done properly, that is. Which means that in order to orient oneself to reality properly, one must have the underlying goal of getting to the top of the hierarchy (i.e. the best at the game). This justifies anything, unless you fundamentally change your metaphysics. So, if reality is a game - if life is a game - and the idea in a game is to win, to make it to the top of the hierarchy, then this allows ends justifiability in action, which is unethical since there is no way to say what is right or wrong with regards to the hierarchy. If you do make an attempt to try and say "oh, the game of life has these rules", then you would have to either fit them post-hoc into how the hierarchy is, or you would have to derive them post-hoc from the hierarchy. Which leads to moral subjectivity. This is why, coming back to Salty's point, we can have different rulesets and superficial goals for games. Because games are based not in a hierarchy, but in reality - where one's virtues with regards to these games that are abstracted and reintegrated concretizations of certain aspects of reality are what shine through to generate the hierarchy. Either way, depending on the game, different superficial virtues will come to the forefront - like weaponplay, stickhandling, grip, swingshape, balance - but there will be an underlying objective set of virtues that people must exhibit in order to get to those points, whether they understand it or not. *edit 1* As far as the pleasure we derive from our abstracted warring @Salty, this comes from the achievement and concretization of virtues. This is why I agree with Multi that no one actually likes camping Sniper Tower, because the game is not about camping. It is (largely) about movement, positioning in gunfights, collecting power weapons, and dueling from midrange while travelling throughout the map. The problem is that Halo is a mixed breed of sorts. Half Arena, half Squad. As such, the lines are blurred, and Squad tactics of cover and hold are easier to implement, especially in a sprint-integrated, low-jumping sandbox. Which means that the virtues and rewards of Arena gameplay that are still present and still most tangible (as far as Halo's current multiplayer goes) get passed over for the Squad stuff, even though the key elements of Squad gameplay are missing. So it just sucks. Pyrrhic victories abound, and are compounded by the awful progression and Req system. This map I'm making is designed with Evolved in mind. 1s and 2s. Get ready. No more generic textured cubes hahaha *edit 2* And remember, a War of Attrition is inherently stagnant. Extended gunfights are not necessarily like this unless you're looking at a trench-style location or mentality in both players. Lateral gunplay is a loose illustration for this, but it is not necessarily attritive in nature, because a lateral push for high ground where both players are doing that mean that both are playing a game of Conquest, Aggression, or Offense. If I'm constantly moving sideways or backpedaling without the express reason of finding a better angle from which to push the other player/team then I am not playing Conquest, I am playing a game of 'Retreat', which makes any offensive play that much harder for me, and easier for the other player. And if I'm camping, this is total 'anti-Offense' play, where attrition comes to mind. This is what Lockout and Guardian (I think) boil down to because of what their designs encourage and reward from players.
Sorry it took me so long to get to this - that's all fine and dandy, I'll treat it as if you agreed with those of xzamples' premises that I asked about. OK. So the 'true self' is the path derived from (generated by) the choices one makes. This path then influences the future choices, which in turn influence the 'true self', and so on. And this starts at a genetic level, which is then influenced by experiences that lead to first choices, and therefore the first 'true self'. So the 'true self' does not exist until you have made a choice, but it is a combination of nature and nurture, and requires there to be a nature basis for its eventual derivation/expression. Can a choice be made before there is experience? Better question: how do experiences affect the genetic basis, and therefore choices?
I think this is where there's confusion in my claim that all of us crave a common thing. People look at that statement as if to say, well I enjoy pop and other people enjoy rap! When in reality my claim is more along the lines of - your brain will recognize high quality, well written, intricately designed pop music over a song that's 4 chords and a key change. I'm not saying that we all enjoy the same genre, but rather are drawn to the highest quality of a certain genre. Not all gamers need to like Battlefield games. But I reckon that the battlefield fans that think the games are better off with near hitscan weapons and high auto aim are full of **** and actually crave the heavy projectile experience, DESPITE the immediate draw of success with easier gunplay. I'm not saying we all have the same tastes and I never did, xzamples misrepresented my argument there or perhaps I haven't explained properly yet. Im saying everyone's brain is wired to inherently get annoyed and recognize BS when it happens to them whether its Spartan charge in Halo, meta knight in smash bros, massive hip fire bullet magnetism in Battlefield, whatever. It needs integrity, and what integrity entails is inherent.
Cool. I didn't really expect a reply to this as the whole "true self" thing was kinda off topic but it's an interesting thing to discuss so nice to see a reply. The only thing I think you interpreted wrong from my ideas (tbh I really didn't mention this so it's my fault) is that I think the "true self" only exists once you've made a choice. What I meant really by giving genetics as a start point was that before any choices was made your genetics are your "true self". How do experiences effect genetics is an interesting question. My answer would be they don't. They affect you (your "true self") as they affect your choices but they don't effect genetics. In my idea genetics is the base which can't change and your choices and experiences build upon it.
Better question: how do experiences affect the genetic basis, and therefore choices? My answer would be they don't, [because the 'true self' only exists after choices are made - but before choices are made, genetics are your 'true self']. Can you explain this a little better? Because what you're telling me, quite clearly, is that the 'true self' is genetics before choices are made, and that the 'true self' requires a choice to be made for the path to appear. Which is it?
Your "true self" starts at a point, genetics, and then once a choice is made this adds another point forming a path. Each new point/choice/experience lengthens the path. Alternatively ignore the path analogy and just think off it as our "true self" is our genetics (the start point) and then also all our past choices/experiences (the path).
icyhot my guy, everything you post is unnecessarily wordy, and not the "roll off the tongue" kind You're probably right, I'm not an expert and I admittedly haven't read anything on the subject. I would say that a set of games isn't really the same as a lust for war, but like I said I haven't thought or read about it very much Anyways multi is making a new map and it's pretty dope from what I understand of it I am also theory-crafting for my next map but I haven't really sat down to bring forth a high resolution version of the concept from the jumbled mess of ideas and goals in my head Life is good
I'm hyped about the new multi map too. Letssss goo baby! It's been far too long. I want to actually start playing 2v2 more frequently. I've only gotten a few games on arcanum and they've all been pretty **** due to my skill and teammates skill (I love you goatman). Once I'm actually decent I wanna taste of the deep meta I know and my opponents that dicked us hard know is there haha
Design theory is like enriching crack to me, we gotta party chat bout your new map ideas soon. I also have a new 2v2 I'm wipping up. I need wayyy more expirence in this field of level design, so what better time to start then now.