Thoughts on Computer Games and Evolution

[andrewducker]

Said thoughts being brought about by going to see a discussion on that subject because Ken MacLeod was involved (and tisme got me a couple of tickets).

Computer games design is, memetic - the design ideas for each one are clearly memes.  Out of the  whole of the human/computer interaction space they've colonised certain areas, largely grouped themselves into a few species, and propagate based on a fitness function of how much money they make - which is directly proportional to how popular they are.

Of course, their popularity is based on how well they affect people - they tap directly into human emotions and instincts.  Everything from simple reaction testing to provoking fear and stress responses.  Which is, in turn based on human evolution.

So you've got the evolution of computer systems, interfacing with people, their fitness function directly related to the affect they have on our nervous system, itself the result of our own evolution.

===

Also, autopope was there, who I seem to perpetually orbit in the same circles as, and seem to actually talk to about once a year - we ended up sitting on opposite sides of the room, and afterwards he was caught up with one group of people, and me with another.  One of these days we'll both be in the pub at the same time without me dashing off somewhere instantly!

Comments

[andrewducker]

Three reasons:
1) I was at a talk on games and evolution.
2) Games are more mass-market than anything outside of movies - and possibly more mass-market than that. This forces the vast majority of them to fit into niches which are known to make money.
3) Games are intrinsically limited. Which, as it's also the thing you questioned further down, I'll go into more depth on :->

Books, plays, etc. are incredibly freeform in their possibilities. Music arguably less so. RPGs are less freeform than books/movies/plays because they have a system through which things are filtered. This system can be overriden by people though, and they can be lightweight, allowing a vast amount of possibilities. Computer games are intrinsically much more system heavy - they are in fact systems themselves. This means that they are limited to the possibilities allowed by that system - far less than the total allowed by the human imagination (future-tech-AI withstanding).

In addition, games seem to be tuned in ways that movies and books aren't - the best bits of the mechanics are pulled out and reused in other games. While this happens a certain amount in books and movies, I'd argue that it happens a lot more in things that are "mechanical" systems in their own right.

And that's why I think the evolution of these "feedback-systems-which-provide-entertainment" fits my description better than books or movies :->

(I'm entirely open to argument of course.)