Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'jumanji'.
Found 1 result
So 2 days ago I watched the new Jumanji movie. And I had a few observations about it. It does not belong firmly into one genree (indeed it allows the transcending of genrees). The evolution of the game: Jumanji (the magical/cursed item) had been a boardgame for pretty much forever. But in he modern age, it faced a challenge: "Who plays those anymore?". So it had to Evolve (Digivolve?). It became a 5-player console video game, that also transformed the console it was inserted into. I wondered where this evolution would have to go with even more modern technology: Consoles might die out too. What if it became a Appstore or Download only Game? Could you only download it from a "mysterious Appstore that is no longer there when you look later"? Or would it need to by a object in the physical world? The switch does reintroduce cardridges. But for computers and smartphones, any USB stick/dongle/SD card could do. But that raises another question: User interface/presumed gameplay. By it's nature, the game is multiplayer. Consoles usually have place for up to 4 controlers, making it likely that 4 players split-screen co-op or even play on the same screen. But for Computers that is different. A few old games (usually beat em up ports) offer the option for 2 players (each using a different half of the keyboard for control). But at large, this approach is rare and would appear alien to most computer users. Hotseat multiplayer is a even older approach, but it only works for turnbased games. And Jumanji seems more like a action/realtime game. At large, Multiplayer modes over a network have replaced mutiple players on one PC. And with Smartphones that much is not even possible. But having multiple instances of the Game Media could also have issues, like them being split up. I mean it could be a way for the game to replicate (effectively everytime someone wants to play it with friends, he discovers a hidden area with exactly the right amount of media)s. But such a thing might also dilute it's magic power among the instances. Plus not all deviceses have all kinds of connectors. But what if it was a small server? Most Routers are de-facto small Webservers for the Interface (router functions like DHCP) Original a seperate part, Print Servers have become integral part of many Nettop/Mini PC's have become a thing. Or a resurgence, depending how you look at it. The Raspberry Pi is a more extreme case (being single board computers), but the technology is well established. So Jumanji could become a simple mysterious Nettop. Power connector+button, Network connector and (possibly integrated) WLAN&Bluetooth connection (for smartphones). On it's bottom a IP adress/server name is listed, that mysteriously is always resolved no mater how technologically impossible that should be*. The game is distributed via ClickOnce. Or maybe it has it's own Webstore. Even a thin Client approach (playable in webbrowser) might be possible. It is really just a front to get people to register themself to it, so the game can absorb them. For true modern age mutiplayer, it might even have the mysterious ability to create a VPN network with person you want to play it with** *Routers get away with defining those values, because they become the networks primary DHCP Server. That means they define the IP adresses for the network and declare themself the DNS server. Maybe the sticker just changes depending on wich Network/router you connect it too? **Normally getting onto the non-internet side of a router is damn hard. You always need some internet reachable server to do it, even if all it does is aid the hole punching. Actually the ease with wich you can play this game together might be a big teltale that something is not normal with this game. It's a trap: Something that oddly never occured to me before, was using a game like this as a way to seal away someone or something. It's multiplayer nature combined with split required abilities makes it possible that a single being could never "finish the game". So it might be the can in "sealed evil in a can". It also acted like a time travel device, in the sense that the first person absorbed was thrown back to the point where he had disapeared, with the timeline being rewritten accordingly. In this case it was 20 years. But computing hardware goes back at least to the 1960's (and as the Films game, it might have just changed to that form). And the being might be evil, so the whole timeline might be rewritten by the beings actions in the past. The story never ends: While the game and console were presumably destroyed at the end, I would not doubt it that it will come back. Indeed I fully expected a post-credits scene where we see the game&console reforming itself like Christine from the 1983 film. But this might have been too horror-esque for this film.