Re: Galaxy, JUST a game...?

From: nicholso@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Melvin H. Nicholson YBH)

Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1993 22:27:31 +0000

bc@lnec.pt (Luis Miguel Sequeira) writes:
>amead@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Alan Mead) writes:
>
>>A bizillion people started posting about this and that not being
>>realistic.  That's not the point.  I find it incredible that anyone can
>>discuss the "realism" of a space conquest game.
[details deleted]
>>
>>NO.  All those changes would be dumb.  Those rules work now even though
>>their realism is arguable (at best).
>
>Huh, what a discussion...
>
>Let's get you lubricating your flamethrowers again:
>
>"Realism" isn't just ships  moving at  0.2  light-years/year. That is,
>don't  expect to apply  today's notions  of what  "reality" is to a SF
>setting.
>
[example of a misguided attempt to provide "realism" deleted]

>The point  is,  what one  means  with  "realism"  on  a SF setting  is
>"coherent rules".  That is, thinks make sense,  have their own  logic,
>and are not contradicting  themselves.

I think the term you are looking for is "internal consistancy"  The idea
is that a SF setting, while it may contradict current views of what is
possible, should not contradict it's own rules about how things work.

>Read an SF book of some _good_
>author sometime.  You'll find there an  impossible  future,  but  it's
>quite  realistic.   Each thing has its own rules  and  laws to follow,
>which  have logic, and  we can reason  in those  terms. That's what SF
>"realism" is.

I'll stop myself before going off on a literary tangent, and only pause
to note that the above argument is self-referential in semantics.  You
state that a good SF book will be realistic, then conclude that this is
what realism is.  Drop that part and you have your best point: the book
is good because it has it's own rules/laws which make sence.
>
[galaxy example deleted]
I don't understand the example, perhaps because I haven't played Galaxy.

>So, when someone argues  that "transporting  cargo on the  OUTSIDE  of
>ships is unrealistic", what is meant  is, "in  the  spirit of the game
>setting,  such  things   are  out  of  place".   And  NOT,  "this   is
>technologically impossible in 1993, so it shouldn't be allowed".
>
>All discussions about "realism" should take this in account: that what
>is or sin't realistic  ought to be judged  according to the  setting's
>own rules and laws, and not relating to 1993 technology.
>
[comments to the effect that these discussions are not only allowable
but also good deleted for brevity]

I agree, with the following reservation: the need for internal consistancy is
not limited to flavor of the game, but the play as well, and the desires
for intuitive feel and playability can often come into conflict and must
each be given fair consideration.
>
>	Luis Sequeira
>
Mel Nicholson>

References

Galaxy, JUST a game...?
bc@lnec.pt (Luis Miguel Sequeira)
Tue, 09 Feb 1993 00:13:22 +0000