Re: [game-lang] a survey of previous work

[Joel Uckelman <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thus spake Simon McGregor:
> 
> What do we want our game representation language to do?
> I'd like the following features: -
> 
> 1) A playable GUI version of a game can be automatically generated
> from its description, assuming that the game is composed of standard
> generic components (e.g. dice, cards, counters, tiles, board, etc.).
> If the game features some weird component like a card which changes
> appearance depending on the polarisation of ambient light, it should
> be possible to write a plugin for it.

I'm hovering between 'orthogonal to a game rep language' and 'not
possible' on this one. The actual appearance of game components isn't
relevant to the proper logical relations between them, which is what
the rules capture. I think it's a good idea to have a standard format
for storing visual representations of game objects, because then programs
could use those to map objects in our nascent rules lanuage to their
visual representations---but I think it's a completely seperate issue
from representing game rules.

My 'not possible' comment stems from not being sure how 'automatic'
automatic is. I'm trying to imagine a automatically generated visual
representation of, well, basically any wargame, and failing at it.
 
-- 
J.
_______________________________________________
game-lang mailing list
game-lang@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/game-lang