- Author
- Frank Lantz (Donkeyspace newsletter)
- Published
- 27 June 2023
- Kind
- Personal newsletter essay about one small game
- Original
- franklantz.substack.com/p/network-wars-and-the-mystery-of-the
- Subject
- Games and game design
- Themes
- Rules that generate, What counts as a mind
What it is
An essay by Frank Lantz on Donkeyspace. It follows a podcast talk about Network Wars, a small strategy game. It asks what the bots in that game really are.
What it says
- Lantz says the bots follow simple, predictable rules. Players can steer them into fighting each other.
- Lantz says the bots are rules, like gravity in Tetris, not opponents.
- Lantz says even a complex or perfect-playing AI would still be part of the game.
- Lantz suggests all game AI opponents are best seen as internal features.
- Lantz concludes you are a player only while developing a strategy. Executing one does not count.
What evidence it gives
The essay rests on the author's own play and the game's rules. It also uses thought experiments, such as a Blackjack cheat sheet. It gives no tests or data. Two comments offer a quotation and a layered-games model.
Interests and limits
The post and two comments were read in full. Six more comments were not shown on the page. The argument rests on one simple game. The author admits some bot behavior is not fully worked out.
Connections
These links are this wiki's own reading, not claims the sources make.
- Kishotenketsu - a plot structure without conflict. Lantz says game bots are rules, like gravity, and not opponents. The kishotenketsu post says that structure does without conflict. Both loosen the assumption that drama needs an adversary. What would a game built on a twist be?
- The Firemen: Hot stuff. The review praises Danny, an AI partner who acts without being prompted. Lantz would call Danny part of the game's rules. Yet the review treats Danny almost as a colleague. How much of companionship is reliable rules?