🚀 go-pugleaf

Jeff Vitous wrote:
> 
> Allan Goodall wrote:
> 
> > If this is were a board game that allowed a deviant strategy to easily win
> > the game, people would decry the game as flawed (at the very least). It's a
> > computer game, though, so people blame those who use the deviant strategy.
> > Sorry, I don't buy that. The game's flawed.
> 
> With most board games, it is possible to devise a solution, "official" or not,
> to the satisfaction of the players.  Once a given rule is accepted, enforcement
> generally isn't much of a problem.  In computer games, for some reason only
> technological limitations are seen as "rules" that have to be obeyed.  The
> "because I can" defense would never work for a board game.

This comparason just does not hold water. Rules in a board game
constitute its
mechanics and give all players a common set of constraints within which
to
compete. A boardgame only needs rules because the game itself is not
phsically
capable of directly constraining what the players are allowed to do. For
example if a chess board could physically prevent you from making an
illegal
move then you would not need written rules at all.

The difference with a computer game is that the rules are embodied
directly
within the game itself rather than some seperate entity. I think  its
perfectly reasonable to assume that all of a computer games rule are
enforced
by the computer - in the end its the only fair and efficient solution.

Paul C.

UK.