Re: The nature of the beast

From: quixote@hing.lcs.mit.edu (Chris Conley)

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000

In article <htp-1902991758120001@htp5500.metropolis.net.au>,
Henry Penninkilampi <htp@dove.net.au> wrote:
>David desJardins:

>The point I was making was that the interface provided by PFEM games is
>inferior to PBM/PBEM games because the former is rigid and the latter is
>flexible.  You have just described that you are able to process huge
>amounts of information by way of editing tools, scripts and printing -
>this is exactly what I was trying to say: The more players are able to
>customise their interfaces, the greater the rate at which information can
>be accessed.

I think you need to rethink your view of "PFEM" games.

According to your earlier definition, IIRC, "PFEM" games are those games
in which information is transmitted to the player in a non-human-readable
format, correct?

The problem is that there is a very wide gulf between non-readable and
non-interpretable information.

For instance, a zipped up text file is a non-readable file, but it is
quite easy to translate into a readable file.  A "computer format" turn
report populated with symbols and numbers can be translated into a text
report if so desired.  In fact, *any* data file could be translated
into a text file so long as the encoding of information within that
data file is made public.

And, of course, there are multiple means of translating a text file into
a data (i.e. non-readable) file.  Mapping programs immediately come to
mind, as do any tools that parse a text turn into a game database.

The implication of this, of course, is that there is no real difference
between the possible customization of a "text-based" PBEM game and a
game in which the turns are distributed in a publicly known encoded
format, because the two formats can be interchanged with minimal work.
Olympia could be played as a "PFEM" game with sufficient tools; if we
knew how the data files were encoded (do we?), Stars could be turned
into a text-based "PBEM" game.

The only fundamental difference comes when the encoding of information
is not publicly available, which in turn keeps players from generating
their own tools to process their turns and orders.  And I find the
assumption that this will continue to be the case for all non-text-
based games in the future to be *very* suspect.

And even in those cases, how can you say that the interface with VGA
Planets is "less flexible" than the interface with a PBM game in which
you receive your turn on printed paper and return your orders in a
prepared form?  I see an argument that it is as flexible, perhaps, but
not less flexible.

[ snip ]

>Sure, absolutely, positively, couldn't agree more - if you want to TELL
>OTHERS EXACTLY WHAT TO DO AND WHERE TO GO then email is a great way to do
>it.  Fortunately, most of the people that *I* have had the pleasure of
>playing with preferred to discuss issues, not dictate them.  We bounce
>ideas off each other, get a general consensus of what we are trying to
>accomplish, make sure that we are aware of our individual
>responsibilities, and then we let each other do our *own* bloody turns!

So do I, and I do it entirely through e-mail.  If I can send messages to
my friends and family back home about my life, I can certainly send notes
to my allies or potential adversaries in a game about my thoughts.

In fact, I don't believe anyone has brought up what I consider to be one
of the greatest advantages of e-mail: the ability to communicate with
multiple parties at once.  My entire Odyssey faction can discuss the
latest threat to our position on e-mail; doing that on the phone would
be virtually impossible, as even if we could put together a conference
call we would never all be available at once.  Or I can carry on a
diplomatic conversation with one party while keeping another party
informed of the exact details of that conversation, just by bcc'ing the
second person on my messages and forwarding him the responses.

To me, this aspect alone makes e-mail a lot more efficient than any
other form of communication.

- Chris

References

The nature of the beast
htp@dove.net.au (Henry Penninkilampi)
Thu, 18 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: The nature of the beast
htp@dove.net.au (Henry Penninkilampi)
Fri, 19 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: The nature of the beast
David desJardins <desj@math.berkeley.edu>
Thu, 18 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: The nature of the beast
htp@dove.net.au (Henry Penninkilampi)
Fri, 19 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Referenced By

The nature of the beast
htp@dove.net.au (Henry Penninkilampi)
Thu, 18 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: The nature of the beast
htp@dove.net.au (Henry Penninkilampi)
Fri, 19 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: The nature of the beast
David desJardins <desj@math.berkeley.edu>
Thu, 18 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: The nature of the beast
htp@dove.net.au (Henry Penninkilampi)
Fri, 19 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000