Physicality in interactive media is incredibly difficult to define. Is it the physical reaction or the virtual reaction that governs what we call a physical game? The truth is the definition is governed by parameters and rules, which constantly change. Technology is an example of one of those rules. When you think about “gaming” when our grandparents where young a physical game could have been defined quite easily. The process was enacted physically, the calculations where done personally and the results where demonstrated literally. These days the term “physical gaming” has become skewed due to the increase in rules, which contradict the implied meaning of physicality morphing it into something entirely different. At this current time, by logical definition a physical game does not contrive input from anything that can’t be varied physically. This draws the line quite plainly between games you would see on the Wii and a similar game enjoyed on the Xbox or pc. The ‘Tiger Woods’ golf game is an example of a game that demonstrates across mediums, changes from physical to non-physical gameplay. On the Wii, a literal motion determines the input and the input calculated is varied dependent on your relevant individual strength. The same motion enacted out on a control pad on the Xbox, is not relevant because your strength is assumed, the button press acting as a proxy to a parallel real life activity. The latter version cannot be defined as a physical game because the input is not a literal variable; it is a pre-determined function that is derived from an assumption. This assumption removes the player enough for it to be considered “virtual”.
This hypothesis is all under the consideration that the term ”game” is already defined. Which is an entirely different beast, equally as hard to trap.
~Michele
(maths & physics for artists - tutorial)
No comments:
Post a Comment