Theory

[artfan]

Looking up the definitions of words like abstract or simulation is too difficult. Just invent a new word:

http://www.half-real.net/

[JoshF]

The Half-Real of the title refers to the fact that video games are two rather different things at the same time: video games are real in that they are made of real rules that players actually interact with; that winning or losing a game is a real event. However, when winning a game by slaying a dragon, the dragon is not a real dragon, but a fictional one. To play a video game is therefore to interact with real rules while imagining a fictional world and a video game is a set of rules as well a fictional world.

That's... kinda retarded.

How come slaying a dragon is less real than a game's rules? There's the fucking dragon right there on my screen. Is it because dragons don't exist in the natural word, unlike the rule "collect 100 rings for a 1-up"?

[artfan]

There are some polygons and textures (or a sprite) that represent a dragon. There may be a fictional world which the dragon is a part of. There is also a collection of rules relating to that representation (its collision box, health etc.).

He says these rules are 'real' because you can interact with them. I think he could drop this part and just say that games are rules and an optional fictional world. He may have used 'half-real' for marketing reasons. It sounds like half-life and making up a new word gives the impression that it is a new concept.

[icycalm]

Is it because dragons don't exist in the natural word, unlike the rule "collect 100 rings for a 1-up"?

That's only ONE of the retardations of that passage. He says "the dragon in the game is not a real dragon". And I ask: And what is a real dragon you fucking dingbat? The expression "real dragon" is a self-contradiction!

However, when winning a game by slaying a dragon, the dragon is not a real dragon, but a fictional one.

As if ALL dragons were not fictional ones! And he uses this verbal swill to ADVERTISE his book!

To play a video game is therefore to interact with real rules while imagining a fictional world

More verbal swill. "Imagining a fictional world", lol -- videogames are the degree zero of the imagination -- there is NOTHING to imagine: it's all right there on the screen for you. Absolutely nothing is left to the imagination.


P.S. I am not even going to deal with artfan's statements -- that's how muddled they are. I am just going to caution him against filling up my theory forum with his smarmy idiocies.

[icycalm]

How come slaying a dragon is less real than a game's rules? There's the fucking dragon right there on my screen.

He says the rules are real, but the dragon is not. But the dragon is a collection of rules, right? And if the rules are real, he must also be real, right?

Let's replace the dragon with a real animal to make the matter simpler. A wolf, say. Is the wolf in the videogame real, assuming the rules that define him are real?

This is a case of a confusion of language. What we call "wolf", the object we have agreed to designate by the sequential letters w-o-l-f, is, according to Wikipedia, "the largest wild member of the Canidae family of carnivorous and omnivorous mammals". Is the thing on your screen a member of the Canidae family of carnivorous and omnivorous mammals? -- No. -- So it's not a wolf. The question of whether or not it is a REAL wolf DOES NOT EVEN ARISE, because IT'S NOT A WOLF AT ALL.

End of story.

[icycalm]

lol, I think I just destroyed his whole book.

[icycalm]

Also, this was a rhetorical question:

He says the rules are real, but the dragon is not. But the dragon is a collection of rules, right?

The answer to this question is, in fact, "WRONG". Try to figure out why.

[Bread]

The 'dragon' on the screen is just a picture. It's a collection of pixels, not rules.

The 'dragon' in the game, understood as a kind of object with certain behaviours and a certain appearance, is a fiction. The rules are engineered to produce interactive imagery that our common sense (mis)interprets as a world of specific objects, actions, causality, agency, etc. The dragon's 'existence' depends not only on code and pixels, but also the observer.

"Imagining a fictional world", lol -- videogames are the degree zero of the imagination -- there is NOTHING to imagine: it's all right there on the screen for you. Absolutely nothing is left to the imagination.

Isn't imagination involved when the player anticipates what lies ahead, or plans his next move? What about text adventures?

[icycalm]

On the first point, you sort of got it right. But you also muddled it quite a bit. I am not going to analyze your post because it's hopeless -- the complete correct answer is this:

The dragon of the game is certainly not simply a collection of rules. It's not just pixels either -- it's both.

If it were just a collection of rules then there would be nothing on the screen. A collection of rules is just a collection of rules -- in this case just a bunch of ones and zeroes. One can do nothing with a bunch of ones and zeroes. -- Pixels are also just pixels. One can do nothing with mere pixels.

The "dragon" is real alright -- or, to use a better example than what that idiot used: the "wolf" is real. As real as anything else around us. It's just not a wolf. You need a new word to designate him. The reason we use "wolf" is for convenience's sake ("It kinda looks like a wolf, so what the hell, let's just call it a wolf!") -- which is why we end up running against all these theoretical problems later on. But consider Amaterasu in Okami: what is "half-real" about him? Amaterasu in Okami is Amaterasu in Okami -- say hi to him from me next time you see him. Whether he will reply back is another question. But he will certainly not be any less real on that account! Do "real" wolves reply when you say hi to them anyways?

The "dragon" or the "wolf" are simply what happens when the game's rules interact with the digital circuitry to which we feed them. What comes out of this interaction is neither "fantastic" nor "unreal" nor "half-" or "quarter-" or "six-sevenths-" real -- it is perfectly real. It's smaller, more harmless, less complex than many other real things, certainly, but that does not in any way render it unreal. Fundamentally, the only unreal things in the universe are our thoughts (and a case could even be made against that -- since thoughts do indeed exist: inside our brains). But everything else is as real as can be. Videogames are not thoughts -- they are out there, they exist. Only someone who DOESN'T BELIEVE IN THE EXISTENCE OF ANYTHING THAT'S OUT THERE (like Baudrillard, for example) could say that videogames and the stuff they contain and the stuff that happens in them are not real -- but then he would also say the same thing about you and me and the earth and the sun, etc. -- so who gives a fuck about him? I know I am real -- if someone wants to doubt or deny the reality of my existence, be my guest -- but you will never be able to convince me of it.

So yeah. Is anyone getting what I am saying to you here? It's really not that complicated. You just have to remove all the fuddled words from your brain and think physics. You must see the world around you entirely in terms of physics -- and philosophy. Then everything becomes clear, lol.

[icycalm]

This reminds me of how Wittgenstein ended his Tractatus. He says something to the effect that "and only when you have understood that all the statements in this book are nonsense will you have understood me".

Isn't philosophy great?

But seriously, things are really not that complicated.

[icycalm]

For those who are still confused about all this: don't worry. This is just forum chit-chat. I typed the above explanation in like five minutes, but I will be explaining everything in future essays to the usual degree of exasparating detail.

[icycalm]

Forgot about this:

"Imagining a fictional world", lol -- videogames are the degree zero of the imagination -- there is NOTHING to imagine: it's all right there on the screen for you. Absolutely nothing is left to the imagination.

Isn't imagination involved when the player anticipates what lies ahead, or plans his next move? What about text adventures?

You have to take phrases like "zero" and "absolutely nothing" with a grain of salt. I have sort of explained this here: http://forum.insomnia.ac/viewtopic.php?p=12232#12232

Such phrases are just exaggerations in order to make a point a bit more obvious. OF COURSE the imagination is still working when you are playing a game -- the imagination never stops working, except when you die. It even works when you are sleeping! And in fact better than ever! -- But as far as SIMULATION is concerned, or REPRESENTATION (which are effectively one and the same concept -- the difference is one of degree, not quality), videogames exercise the imagination far less than anything else. That's why I used the expression "zero degree", as for example in Roland Barthes' "Le Degré zéro de l'écriture" (Writing Degree Zero). He doesn't mean it literally, and neither do I.

[icycalm]

By the way, Josh's post up there is pure genius. And I bet the sarcasm in the last sentence went over everyone's head.

[hyac]

So if you were to say something in a videogame is not real, would you just be saying that for the sake of convenience? For example, if you said that a soldier on the screen isn't real, you would mean "the thing we call a soldier that is on the screen is not an actual soldier."

edit:

I think this post from the "Videogames and Simulation" thread answers my question:

In a videogame, nothing is actually occurring apart from the player sitting in front of a screen wiggling around a joystick. And of course a game disc is spinning, electronic signals are passing between the computer and the screen, photons from the screen strike the player's eyes, sound waves emanating from speakers arrive at his ears etc. etc. But nothing depicted ON THE SCREEN is actually happening. No one is walking. No one is shooting. No one is talking. The player is simply, with the help of the machine and a code which is merely a collection of 1s and 0s, tricking his own brain into believing that these things are happening, and that he takes part in them through the wiggling of the joystick or any other type of controller. That is all that's actually happening.

http://forum.insomnia.ac/viewtopic.php?t=2584

When you say something in a videogame is not real, you mean "not real" in the sense that it is not what it aims to simulate -- not that the videogame element somehow doesn't exist at all.

Sorry for cluttering things up. I don't think I can delete this post on my own though...

[artfan]

Yep went over my head.

If scale models are used to film Luke Skywalker's spaceship: is Luke's ship real, are the scale models real, or both?

When you read a book, is the world in your head real?

[JoshF]

Dude, have you been watching Videodrome for like a month straight? The questions you're asking are pretty basic logic.

A scale model exists as a scale model. The perceived "real" (with suspension of disbelief) ship exists as a collection of lights on a TV, not...an actual spaceship.

When you read a book, is the world in your head real?

Not unless you have mutant powers.

[artfan]

So then you are saying that fictional worlds that you create in your head assisted by the words in books or the lights on a tv screen are not real?

If yes, then when you get up to Death Adder in Golden Axe, the sprite is real, the collision box (and other rules) are real but the fictional Death Adder is not. By fictional Death Adder I mean there is a back story that Death Adder killed the main character's relative. You'll be aware of this when you are fighting him but it is separate to the sprite and collision box. So Death Adder is made up of three things and is only partly real.

[JoshF]

So then you are saying that fictional worlds... are not real?

Yes. This applies to Star Wars, Golden Axe, Snake Rattle 'n' Roll or whatever other examples you might care to use.

Here's a fun experiment to try. You have to try it though!

First, draw an apple on the back of a square piece of extra course sandpaper. Then proceed to rub it vigorously against your genitals. Next, eat the paper. Finally, write an essay on your experiences. Did it feel and taste like a real apple? Give reasons as to why or why not.

[icycalm]

So Death Adder is made up of three things and is only partly real.

There is no such thing as "partly real". Such expressions are simplifications for the benefit of idiots who fail to grasp what is actually happening. I have explained what is actually happening. If some people do not understand my explanation there is not much more I can do about it. I will give it one more try in one of my essays, and I will devote a bit more effort to it, but that is all I can do. The rest is up to the reader.

artfan, I already deleted one of your posts in this thread. If you make another thoughtless, worthless post in the theory subforum you will be banned. (Except if it's real funny.)

[icycalm]

So if you were to say something in a videogame is not real, would you just be saying that for the sake of convenience? For example, if you said that a soldier on the screen isn't real, you would mean "the thing we call a soldier that is on the screen is not an actual soldier."

Exactly.

[icycalm]

And can some people now see that the introduction of a neologism such as "half-real" makes things HARDER to understand, instead of easier, which was presumably the reason behind its introduction?

The soldier in the game is not "half-real", whatever the hell that's supposed to mean -- nor unreal. He is simply not a soldier. We just use that word for convenience's sake. But whatever it is that's on the screen is as real as anything else that surrounds us.

Baudrillard: "That which is real exists; that is all we can say."

http://insomnia.ac/essays/integral_reality/

The thing on the screen exists -- so it is real.

(But Baudrillard continues, lol: "But existence isn't everything -- it is, even, the least of things.")

[icycalm]

(But that's just his nihilism talking -- so you can safely ignore it. He actually had that quote printed in the invitation cards to his funeral. It was either one of his last wishes, or his wife or whoever arranged the funeral did it -- I am not sure which.)

[icycalm]

The thing on the screen exists -- so it is real.

Another (easier) example:

The drawing of an apple on Josh's piece of sandpaper exists -- it's just not an apple -- it is simply A DRAWING OF AN APPLE. How can you say that this drawing of an apple does not exist? How can you say that this drawing is "half-real"? It's right there in front of you for fuck's sake! (Which, again, brings us back to Josh's first post.)

If what is real exists, then what is "half-real" must "half-exist", right? But how can something "half-exist"? It either exists or it doesn't!

[artfan]

But whatever it is that's on the screen is as real as anything else that surrounds us.

But the 'soldier' doesn't just refer to what is on the screen but also the fictional character we imagine in our heads. Therefore it can't all be real.

edit: using the analogy, a drawing of an apple is real. If I say the drawing is of a fictional character called Clive the apple, Clive is not real. If I group the fictional Clive and the drawing, is this single group real, not real or partly real? If something can't be partly real then the grouping must be incorrect.

[zinger]

But the 'soldier' doesn't just refer to what is on the screen but also the fictional character we imagine in our heads. Therefore it can't all be real.

So does your face. I mean, I would associate it to past experiences, similar faces etc. and make assumptions about your character that might or might not be true. Does that make you or your face any less real?