Firstly, it would’ve probably been a good idea to have talked about emergence or have been given a reading about it so we know what we’re actually looking for in the seemingly random resources for this week. Or maybe i should learn to read titles…. =/
Gish:
Awesome game! I don’t think that emergence is such a massive part of this game though. I mean i definitely think it’s there more than most other games out there but taking emergence to mean gameplay that is not controlled by the programmer then it’s not really emergence. It’s actually very intuitive, if you were a blob then it makes sense that to jump you have to squish then stretch and that squish and stretch is provided by the programmer. Its kind of like giving you two doors to choose from which both lead to the same room anyway.
Constellation:
He really likes his beatles…
But to the point, brilliant idea! But, I’m not convinced something like that would work in a computer game. I mean yes adding little bits of randomness will often result in players coming to their own conclusions but it’s a bit of a let down if nothing ever comes of it.
I don’t think that you can also compare the game of ‘ paul is dead’ to a modern day computer game either. There’s just too many differences. First of all it worked so well because there were so many ridiculously crazy fans and so many materials to work with. The goal of the game (find evidence of Paul’s death) also arose out nothing. There were no set rules or goals beforehand.
A computer game has a goal, the game is focused on that goal, the player is focused on that goal. They’re not looking for some crazy conspiracy or game play that hasn’t been programmed in. Players look for secret levels or items or places in a game, but that’s not really emergence because that’s intended by the programmer.
So in conclusion i still need a bit more convincing on this point.
