Surrender, Routing, and Pacificm

[tinkthank]

Hey thanks for these replies so far.

Wauthan, I liked your ideas very much. Those are some good in-game variables which could be implemented. I think, anyhow, that this could add to the game very much. I'd like to see some of those in the future. (Probably very far in the future....!)
Note that my initial idea was to be *able* to use variables such as these, not *have to* do so.
Also note that my original idea didnt necessarily want to employ any (tangible) in-game bonuses for being "good" (as Wauthan says).
Also note that I imagine *one* nation of 18 (a new nation) primarily trying to be moral (I prefer not to use the term "good", for the good reasons that Karacan mentioned) as part of their national identity. This would certainly be a different nation than, say, Marignon, who also believes in its own "good"ness to the point of fanatacism.
As to the reference to realism Karacan mentioned: that is not (I think) the issue at all.
Oh and sure there is something to be said for easy demarcations between game and reality; of course. But anyone who has even begun to read any scientific literature in the areas of cognitive pedagogics, modern didactics, and social psychology will tell you that -- although there is no real consensus at the moment amongst all researchers -- there appears to be at least a slight correlation between the way that persons conceive of their real-life world and the way that persons conceive of their fictionalized worlds; if people like Ricoeur are not completely wrong (and I happen to think that Ricoeur has, despite many points not fully articulated that need further explanation and empirical backing), there is a lot to be said about our identity as a "narrative", which can be interwoven with that which some have simply refered to as "fiction"; Ricouer shows that these seemingly simple boundaries are nifty heuristic devices, but nothing more. Drawing boundaries between real life and, say, gaming worlds requires a high degree of normative work, and cannot be taken for granted, at least not by everybody. So sure: here game, there reality, but no: it's not quite that simple, and certainly not for everybody.

[fahdiz]

Originally posted by tinkthank:
So sure: here game, there reality, but no: it's not quite that simple, and certainly not for everybody.

Exactly. That is precisely why I said that some games are for *mature* adults who are capable of distinguishing fantasy from reality. Just being an adult, biologically and legally, isn't really enough.

And of course the things you do for entertainment have a certain impact, no matter how small, on your day to day life. But it works the other way around, as well, as an "outlet".

EDIT: I forgot to add that with a degree in Secondary Education as well as a naturally inquisitive mind, I read enough theories on cognition to turn my eyeballs brown.

[ March 08, 2004, 12:50: Message edited by: fahdiz ]

[tinkthank]

Originally posted by fahdiz:

quote:

---

Originally posted by tinkthank:
So sure: here game, there reality, but no: it's not quite that simple, and certainly not for everybody.

Exactly. That is precisely why I said that some games are for *mature* adults who are capable of distinguishing fantasy from reality. Just being an adult, biologically and legally, isn't really enough.

And of course the things you do for entertainment have a certain impact, no matter how small, on your day to day life. But it works the other way around, as well, as an "outlet".

EDIT: I forgot to add that with a degree in Secondary Education as well as a naturally inquisitive mind, I read enough theories on cognition to turn my eyeballs brown.

---

OK!
Is turning your eyeballs brown a good or a bad thing (in your eyes -- bad pun not intended)?
So it seems like at least some pacifistic options could thus be not only fun, but also great for a target group of young persons, such as my kids. (right?)

[fahdiz]

Originally posted by tinkthank:
OK!
Is turning your eyeballs brown a good or a bad thing (in your eyes -- bad pun not intended)?

Heh. I simply mean to say that because cognitive science is full of so many grey areas (like all social sciences, as cognitive theory really doesn't have the hallmarks of "hard science"), there is an awful lot of crap to wade through in order to get to something of any value. My eyes are green, for the record.

So it seems like at least some pacifistic options could thus be not only fun, but also great for a target group of young persons, such as my kids. (right?)

Or your kids could simply play different games, and Dom II could be left where it is, for its intended audience. In Age of Wonders II there are some benefits to pacifism and diplomacy, depending on the race you're playing (the Spirit of Order seems to like pacifists a lot, and it's a crucial part of the strategy for the "life"-based races) and in a game like Civ II or III you can concentrate for a large part of the game on winning by Wonders and diplomacy rather than by war.

Dom II is a fantasy wargame, rather than a civilization sim or so-called "god game". The fact that its niche is so closely defined allows Illwinter to take that niche to its ultimate level of depth.

[ March 08, 2004, 15:41: Message edited by: fahdiz ]

[tinkthank]

OK I'll go along with that.
And if you don't mind me saying so: I think that *EVEN AS A WARGAME*, it would be great if Dom II (or any wargame for that matter) could *also* consider (or: consider considering?) implement a form of "ius in bello" (as opposed to the simple "ius ad bellum"). I won't make a big deal out of it, and I am certainly not going to blame Illwinter or anyone else for that matter for not doing so, but hey -- one can dream, right? I think it could make the game darn interesting. (And isn't it REALLY also functionally important? If I go around (in today's world) slaughtering helter-skelter, there will be repercussions; ius in bello is not *soley* for moral-goody-goody-ness-vs.-boo-war-is-bad-ness distinctions.)

[fahdiz]

Originally posted by tinkthank:
OK I'll go along with that.
And if you don't mind me saying so: I think that *EVEN AS A WARGAME*, it would be great if Dom II (or any wargame for that matter) could *also* consider (or: consider considering?) implement a form of "ius in bello" (as opposed to the simple "ius ad bellum").

I certainly wouldn't mind seeing such an option/strategy in a different game. And no, you are certainly not wrong for dreaming, nor for wanting something different.

Games are like holes in the ground. Some of them are very broad but rather shallow (they're easier to dig, too), while a select few are narrow yet boundlessly deep. Dominions II is obviously of the latter Category. I haven't yet seen a developer make a game which is simultaneously "all things to all people" (broad) and intensely rich (deep). It could happen in the future, I suppose, but I doubt it.

[tinkthank]

Heh good analogy with the hole.
Well I think you are right. Would be neat to see some of Wauthan's ideas flourish (wouldnt even be that hard to do, I suppose), but until then -- I will just keep quiet, continue dreaming -- and keep having fun playing DomII as it is!