Is Life Just a No-Win Game Like Will Wright's Spore?

[dduardo]

I just saw the following game demonstration given by Will Wright, the creator of the Sims world.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8372603330420559198&q=spore

The game starts you off as a very simple organism in a pool of liquid with other organisms (controlled by another player). As you play you can evolve in any way you want. Eventually you grow into a complex creature that emerges from the water and onto land. When you get enough intelligence you can start building tribes which later on because cities. Age of Empire type play allows where you can conqueror other cities, trade and become allies with other people. After playing for some more time you can eventually build a spaceship and go to other planets and either contact with neighboring civilizations or teraform empty planets. When you get enough technology you can leave your solar system and go to other universes. It is at this point you can basically do whatever you want. If you want to destroy planets you can. If you want to build jedi knights to conqueror the universe you can. Everything is programmable.

But it is at this point that I realized: now what? I've got all this flexibility to do whatever I want but at the same time the game has become pointless. It is like playing tic-tac-toe and always ending up in a draw.

The only winning move is to stop playing!What do you people think about this? Is life a no win deal? Do you think there is a way to "win?" Is ignorance truly bliss? Is not playing our ultimate purpose in life?

 

[quantumcarl]

"Life is what you make (of) it" (Brian Ferry).

If death is the reward for living, no one seems to understand that. So, its not like winning or a goal. In fact most people avoid death at all costs. Even at the cost of another person's life. Who's winning?

Where does the concept of "winning" derive from? Competition. What does a living person compete with... Death?

A predator wins when it bags a meal of a wombat that will last the day or a week. What it doesn't conceptualize is that the winnings diminish as it eats.. soon to become a loser. In this case there is winning and losing wrapped up in one action... eating (mind you, I don't know about eating a wombat!). Is that how the competition of "life" is set up? Is the act of living a combination of winning and losing... and therefore static in nature.. or non-competitive?

Generally, living is a reward in itself. And, since you can calculate death as occupying a part of life, death is one of the rewards of life... and there are many others.

In who's context is life a game.. other than in a computer game?

 

[bilal muhammad]

"Life is what you make (of) it" (Brian Ferry).

If death is the reward for living, no one seems to understand that. So, its not like winning or a goal. In fact most people avoid death at all costs. Even at the cost of another person's life. Who's winning?

Where does the concept of "winning" derive from? Competition. What does a living person compete with... Death?

A predator wins when it bags a meal of a wombat that will last the day or a week. What it doesn't conceptualize is that the winnings diminish as it eats.. soon to become a loser. In this case there is winning and losing wrapped up in one action... eating (mind you, I don't know about eating a wombat!). Is that how the competition of "life" is set up? Is the act of living a combination of winning and losing... and therefore static in nature.. or non-competitive?

Generally, living is a reward in itself. And, since you can calculate death as occupying a part of life, death is one of the rewards of life... and there are many others.

In who's context is life a game.. other than in a computer game?

the winning and losing in life is derived from a fator which is perhaps some how dependent on our doings but how come it decides next event of life is a riddle .life is not more then an interval between birth and death.so just a sub class of time...but still un explainable...