To all those who do not want to read: the game is not a game, when it opposes the player, that is, it is endowed with some specific purpose to oppose or for. The concept of "level" and "lvl", as soon as it is introduced into the concept of the game, it kills the game itself, turning it into an ordinary sport that generates speedrunners. But if on the territory of your level there are a lot of some sandy little things that allow you not to follow the main "goal" - the arcade game turns into a role-playing of your own personality within the encoded space and those "features" due to which this can be done (for example, "cooking" ). If initially the game is made "role-playing", you again endow the game with a "goal in itself", and therefore destroy its aimlessness, and therefore face the phenomenonwhat is called manchikism. Manchkism that in RPGs, whether they are tabletop or in cyberspace, that in MMORPGs is produced strictly for the reason that the player is obliged to comply with these very conditions for the passage of the "plot" and "levels", ignoring the fact that the player himself does not want to participate in your performance, but wants to go into the forest. Give him the opportunity to walk in the forest more than go down into your dungeon.The answer to the haters.
“He (the type of player *) cannot be studied using the methods of sociology, because he is not strictly associated with any particular society ... such a player is not a person of benefit, acquisition, profession, or labor” [1] . Here it is worth objecting to this as follows: the player is an "adapting subject" in the condition of aimless existence; "To play" - "to adapt in the condition of aimless existence", respectively. And only at this moment of understanding the "player" as an adapter can Junger's lucky chance, skill and imitation, to which "all games are reduced", can enter into polemics; from the moment the adaptation process is completed, the game also ends. But at the same time, this will not mean that the game will end in a favorable or unfavorable outcome, the completion of the game can also occur by interrupting it, because the game itself is not at all obliged to lead to anything.
In the field of mathematics, the material that provides a satisfying stock of truths is space and a countable unit [2] . There will be no doubts if you have enough material for the mathematical reproduction of games, for example, in cyber reality, because there is a non-unique example of transferring popular board games to this very digital reality on different "platforms" and in the form of different "applications". The fact that mathematics allows us to reproduce the game in its forms is beyond doubt, just as this reproduction is allowed to us by our imagination. Therefore, playing, for example, chess in cyberspace, for obvious reasons, is not a simulation, insofar as it is real chess, albeit in digital form.
It is not obvious, however, the position of the confrontation between the player and the "computer": unlike the real player, the program does not play just like that, if the appropriate formulation "plays". The moment that for the player the program is a full-fledged enemy, even taking into account its “fake”, is carried out only in the form of an illusory appearance, and this form is determined from the moment the level “complexity” appears.
The very idea of the identity of rational and playful behavior is leveled, and not because the enemy is determined by the unknown (due to the "secret knowledge" of the mechanics) of the player's objective assessment of difficulty, but because the game for the player in this way can sharply have a goal; the goal is to beat the "high" difficulty level. Moreover, from the moment the player is left face to face with the leveled system, it is not the player who begins to act as his opponent, but the game itself, and therefore the game of the same chess is simulated as the game is simulated. Its aimless ontological foundation becomes only an illusory appearance, because now it does not exist by itself, but is endowed with a very specific goal: to create the illusion of a real adversary at the expense of programmed "rational" behavior.
And again: everything where the "computer" plays in its own "game program" destroys aimlessness itself only insofar as the simulation of game behavior expressed in levels of difficulty is not a separate category - this is embedded in the "code" of the game and is an integral part of it, and not "Viewer", "helper" or "virus". Therefore, therefore, everything that belongs to the category of "single-player computer games" is not a game. It is generally accepted to call "gameplay" what was just being discussed. There is one remarkable property in this killer arcade for the Game - any unreal "level" opponent is a simulation of the game only until a real player joins the side of the "program"; in the same case, participation in a programmed gamein the “game” it turns into a full-fledged mechanics, forming “obligatory expressed objects” from itself (including the “engine” itself), and programming and IT are responsible only for them, to the same extent that factories are responsible for making sports equipment. The only thing that cyberspace can objectively offer for the Game is multiplayer e-sports, or the reconstruction of games without the participation of a "level".
, "" ( ) ; "" , , . " " , , . , , , , . «» « », «» «».
, ; (, , ..), , . , , . – , – , .
, , . : «» , .
: , ( ) ... The same thing that combines sports and role-playing game in cyberspace is not a "massively multiplayer online role-playing game", since "MMORPG" only illusoryly possesses sports elements of team rivalry: MMORPG never ends, it CANNOT be won or lost, and in fact You cannot "die" in it. MMORPG is in its essence neither "e-sports", and not "cyber-play" - this is one of the most real products of cyber-game mythology.
[1] F.G. Jünger: Games and the Key to Their Meaning, p. 68
[2] G.V.F. Hegel: The Phenomenology of Spirit, p. 28