With a few exceptions, such as medieval jousting competitions or the gladiator games mentioned above, most acts of play do not willfully inflict bodily harm.
The main point asserted by van Creveld is that both war games and warfare are planned competitive interactions between opponents that are (more or less) structured by rules, and that stretch over time. In this regard, it does not matter if this opponent is a human being, an institution, or an algorithm. Both, he states, are constituted in and through an “interplay between… two sides” that is “strategic” in kind, that means the aim is “to achieve your objective in the face of an opponent who thinks and acts” (p. As van Creveld (2013) observes in his history of war games, games and war exhibit certain similarities. From the ancient Chinese Go, via various iterations of chess to contemporary digital simulation games, or from classical Roman gladiator battles, via martial-arts competitions to today’s first-person shooters, the skills employed and the structures limiting participants’ actions and perceptions point to a variety of equivalences and connections between the two fields of practice. Games and war have always stood in a close relationship to one another. Special Issue - War/Game: Studying Relations Between Violent Conflict, Games, and Play by Holger Pötzsch, Philip Hammond Approaching the War/Game Nexus
0 kommentar(er)
