"One of the implications of J. D.’s remarks is that our most detailed games, at least in the realm of historical conflict simulation, remain analog rather than digital. Why is that, given that the games are essentially cardboard computers?"
Actually, the systems themselves seem to be digital and to perform discrete math on discrete values, as far as I can tell - "accel/decel point," "30 degree increments," etc. They happen to be delivered non-electronically, but an arithmetic workbook or a theory of computation text can also be delivered that way. The system these books describe will still be digital.
My guess as to why the "cardboard computer" route still has appeal: it makes the system completely transparent, so that the people playing know everything about the way the system functions:
"When they move a piece in a fighting wings game, they will get a feel for the effect the maneuver had on the plane’s total energy state, note the change in relative geometry of the fight their move had and note the impact of their move in the thoughtful reactions of their opponents."
If the video and computer games stopped being "badly modeled" but otherwise stayed the same, I suspect players of wargames still wouldn't like them, because they hide the detailed workings of the system from the user and prevent them from getting a feel for the underlying mechanics of conflicts.
Posted by nick at February 5, 2005 12:16 PM"Actually, the systems themselves seem to be digital and to perform discrete math on discrete values, as far as I can tell - "accel/decel point," "30 degree increments," etc. They happen to be delivered non-electronically, but an arithmetic workbook or a theory of computation text can also be delivered that way. The system these books describe will still be digital."
Yes, certainly. Sloppy use of "digital" on my part.
"If the video and computer games stopped being "badly modeled" but otherwise stayed the same, I suspect players of wargames still wouldn't like them, because they hide the detailed workings of the system from the user and prevent them from getting a feel for the underlying mechanics of conflicts."
Well put. So is this a lesson of any kind for ludology? Is there a literature on transparency and its effect on game design/mechanics?