Calvinball: Is it a game?
[Off-topic] I posted a comment here with regards to game definitions. Feel free to add your thoughts. [/Off-topic]
Let's examine Calvinball using Zimmerman's definition. One look at Calvinball and the first thing you'll notice are that the rules do not restrict the players in any way.
Examples:
*IMPORTANT -- The following rules are subject to be changed, amended, or dismissed by any player(s) involved.
1.2. Any player may declare a new rule at any point in the game (Figure 1.2). The player may do this audibly or silently depending on what zone (Refer to Rule 1.5) the player is in.
1.6. Flags (Calvinball Equipment 2.3) shall be named by players whom shall also assign the power and rules which shall govern that flag for particular moment in that particular game(Figure 1.6).
** This rulebook is not required, nor necessary to play Calvinball.
If we are to call this a game, it's a very bad game, because these "rules" are highly unbalanced and nothing's going to stop a player from abusing the system. Any player can simply make up a rule silently that allows him to win instantly. How is that fair? How does one get meaningful play out of this? For instance, if I were to make up a rule right now that says you must quit the game just because you're reading my blog, is that fair?
This leads me to the next question - is Calvinball voluntary? The word "voluntary" implies that the player is aware of all the game rules and has agreed to abide by them before the game starts. If rules can be made/altered/dismissed halfway through the game, silently or otherwise, by any player, then I think it's no longer voluntary, because the other players didn't agree to those new rules. It can be argued that since they knew the rules would change midway and agreed to play under those conditions, it's voluntary, but I'm going to voluntarily dismiss it, because Calvinball rules states that it can be done.
Is there a quantifiable outcome? I'll answer that with a question - how do you even win this game? There's a score system that can be disregarded at any point during Calvinball, so it has no bearing to the outcome whatsoever. Even if it isn't disregarded at all, rule 1.8 states that it has "no bearing on the game" nor does it have any "logical consistency to it", so it's really good as not having it. Notice that there's no fixed rule that states how the game should be won? Even if a player makes a rule that states what objectives must be met in order to win, the other players can make up new rules to dismiss it. Really, there's no way to actually win this.
Based on all the above, it's not a game, and with the rules shifting about so often, I can't see how meaningful play can result from it either.
Let's examine Calvinball using Zimmerman's definition. One look at Calvinball and the first thing you'll notice are that the rules do not restrict the players in any way.
Examples:
*IMPORTANT -- The following rules are subject to be changed, amended, or dismissed by any player(s) involved.
1.2. Any player may declare a new rule at any point in the game (Figure 1.2). The player may do this audibly or silently depending on what zone (Refer to Rule 1.5) the player is in.
1.6. Flags (Calvinball Equipment 2.3) shall be named by players whom shall also assign the power and rules which shall govern that flag for particular moment in that particular game(Figure 1.6).
** This rulebook is not required, nor necessary to play Calvinball.
If we are to call this a game, it's a very bad game, because these "rules" are highly unbalanced and nothing's going to stop a player from abusing the system. Any player can simply make up a rule silently that allows him to win instantly. How is that fair? How does one get meaningful play out of this? For instance, if I were to make up a rule right now that says you must quit the game just because you're reading my blog, is that fair?
This leads me to the next question - is Calvinball voluntary? The word "voluntary" implies that the player is aware of all the game rules and has agreed to abide by them before the game starts. If rules can be made/altered/dismissed halfway through the game, silently or otherwise, by any player, then I think it's no longer voluntary, because the other players didn't agree to those new rules. It can be argued that since they knew the rules would change midway and agreed to play under those conditions, it's voluntary, but I'm going to voluntarily dismiss it, because Calvinball rules states that it can be done.
Is there a quantifiable outcome? I'll answer that with a question - how do you even win this game? There's a score system that can be disregarded at any point during Calvinball, so it has no bearing to the outcome whatsoever. Even if it isn't disregarded at all, rule 1.8 states that it has "no bearing on the game" nor does it have any "logical consistency to it", so it's really good as not having it. Notice that there's no fixed rule that states how the game should be won? Even if a player makes a rule that states what objectives must be met in order to win, the other players can make up new rules to dismiss it. Really, there's no way to actually win this.
Based on all the above, it's not a game, and with the rules shifting about so often, I can't see how meaningful play can result from it either.
posted by Swift at
1:20 am
2 Comments:
Yeah, its very hard to have meaningful play, where the player can perceive the immediate outcome of their actions, when the rules which govern the outcome are constantly shifting...
I'd say this is more an example of chaotic play, rather than a game. In terms of winning, I'd guess the only way to win is if you happen to be Calvin... (or perhaps the babysitter).
By
alex, at 5:36 pm
Thanks for commenting. It does look as though only those two would stand a chance of winning.
I actually have a friend who played Calvinball with two other people. Nobody won, but they had a blast playing it.
By
Swift, at 11:19 pm
Post a Comment
<< Home