W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-games@w3.org > November 2011

Re: Syntax and vocabulary?

From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 20:11:54 +0100
To: jonathan chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btconnect.com>
Cc: public-games@w3.org
Message-ID: <E1361E4C97E744EBB8471849C8D9B637@marcosc.com>

On Wednesday, November 9, 2011 at 5:24 PM, jonathan chetwynd wrote:

> could be wrong and dont want to start on a bum note,
> but was javascript designed with games in mind?

I think JavaScript was designed with programming in mind (but taking the cool bits from other languages). The language features are driven by use cases.   
> aren't js libraries a stepping-stone to a new-to-the-web syntax and vocabulary?

Some argue yes, others argue no.  
> game engines certainly have a place,
> but when considering live real-world data, mash-ups, geo-location, risk-analysis...
> might we need to develop a broader common conceptual language

As someone who studied/researched games and interaction design for a long time (a long time ago!), I can tell you that you don't want to go down this path :) I can point you to some awesome books on the subject, however:  

Cybertext: Perspectives on Ergodic Literature

Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals

Man… the list of great games theory books goes on for ever… and then you get into the whole luddites vs narratologist debates… fun and makes me wish I was back at uni.    

What I found is that it's best to just let people use their own terminology and (oh oh!) ontology and discourse for games.

Again, we should just focus on enabling the Web Platform to allow games to be created with as little pain as possible. It really doesn't matter if we pretend a HTML <div> is a "sprite" or an "NPC" or whatever: just that cool games get made unbounded by theory and concepts (which we leave for the academics to write about:)).    

Marcos Caceres
Received on Thursday, 10 November 2011 19:12:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:50:27 UTC