Comments on: New Anthology: Videogame, Player, Text

By: Jesper

Jesper — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:09:28 +0000

Good question. I think foursquare promotes focus on winning, or at least on the process of playing. (The paratelic, in Apter’s terms.)

By: James Lillis

James Lillis — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 06:09:39 +0000

Are you saying that you believe that there will be a difference between the behaviours of a player who is playing to win and a player who is playing to be winning?

By: lemon

lemon — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 16:29:12 +0000

I’m sure I’ll hate most of this. So looking forward to getting my hands on it :D

By: Jesper

Jesper — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 15:39:24 +0000

Hi James

Ah – there is temporary status, but no final score, that’s the point. At least in the versions I have played and seen referenced.

By: James Lillis

James Lillis — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 11:10:29 +0000

Hi Jesper

James from the Kryptonite Cafe here.

You said: A version of foursquare played with scorekeeping… would likely see very different behaviour from the players.

As an proud ex-foursquare champion, I can tell you that it has one of the most effective scoring systems ever – you’re the champ if you’re on square 1, you’re the challenger if you’re on square 2, you’ve got 2 to beat of you are on square 3, and if you’re on square 4 – the only way is up.

Simple, clear, & compelling. You know exactly where you stand in relation to every other player.

I would find it hard to believe that any points system couldn’t match a scoring system where your actual location in physical space indicates your progress in the game!