It occurred to me that the idea and intent of using fuzzy logic actually contrasts very sharply with pretty much every rulebook (and rule, for that matter), and their purpose. That is to say that the elements and interactions within a game must be extremely rigidly defined (which starts with clear bucketing) for the rules to function as an adjudicator, so as to not leave them open to interpretation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic is actually a fascinating examination of almost exactly this). This seems to me to say, by extension, that bucketing and rigid categorization aren't necessary in thinking about a thing, but they are necessary in practice. To use your example Geoff, if there's a $10,000 prize for "best semi-coop game" on the line, all of the sudden it is extremely important that the buckets are rigid, well-defined and agreed upon. Maybe it's considering things that could fall into either bucket that then leads to the buckets being more rigidly defined over time, or the creation of entirely new buckets, to account for all possibilities. Thoughts on this?
Thanks! I wasn't expecting an excellent meditation on our desire to know thing by association. To compartmentalise the mysterious rather than do the work of understanding.
Our brains have gotten very good at finding shortcuts to the feeling of knowing, rather than use the calories to truly work things out. It's always good to be reminded of this!
When it comes to defining game 'categories', similarly to your fuzzy logic example I like to think in terms of 'features' in a Machine Learning sense - e.g. games with features like combat theme and direct interaction are more likely to fit with the commonly accepted definition of war game
(of course the definition of these features comes with its own difficulties...definitely a rabbit hole all the way down if one aims for a perfect model of reality)
It occurred to me that the idea and intent of using fuzzy logic actually contrasts very sharply with pretty much every rulebook (and rule, for that matter), and their purpose. That is to say that the elements and interactions within a game must be extremely rigidly defined (which starts with clear bucketing) for the rules to function as an adjudicator, so as to not leave them open to interpretation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic is actually a fascinating examination of almost exactly this). This seems to me to say, by extension, that bucketing and rigid categorization aren't necessary in thinking about a thing, but they are necessary in practice. To use your example Geoff, if there's a $10,000 prize for "best semi-coop game" on the line, all of the sudden it is extremely important that the buckets are rigid, well-defined and agreed upon. Maybe it's considering things that could fall into either bucket that then leads to the buckets being more rigidly defined over time, or the creation of entirely new buckets, to account for all possibilities. Thoughts on this?
Thanks! I wasn't expecting an excellent meditation on our desire to know thing by association. To compartmentalise the mysterious rather than do the work of understanding.
Our brains have gotten very good at finding shortcuts to the feeling of knowing, rather than use the calories to truly work things out. It's always good to be reminded of this!
I enjoyed the read, thanks!
When it comes to defining game 'categories', similarly to your fuzzy logic example I like to think in terms of 'features' in a Machine Learning sense - e.g. games with features like combat theme and direct interaction are more likely to fit with the commonly accepted definition of war game
(of course the definition of these features comes with its own difficulties...definitely a rabbit hole all the way down if one aims for a perfect model of reality)