Hello all, I''ve been thinking about what we mean when we talk about "games". One of the key factors which turns a piece of software (or any other system for that matter) into a "game" is a set of victory conditions. That is, there is a way for one or more of the players to win or lose. Once victory conditions have been met, one player or set of players wins and the other player or set of players loses, and the game is over. Well, there are games where this sort of thing works well, and then there are games which I would have much more fun with if I didn''t have to concentrate on winning. I may be the only person who has ever done this, but has anyone ever played Starcraft with invincibility on, just to see how large and elaborate you can make your base? I was also happy to unlock the "stunt mode" in Jet Grind Radio so I could skate about town at my leisure. Sometimes I''ll play racing games 2-player and have nobody playing the second player, then go wandering about the tracks trying to pull off various stunts or get to odd places. I think that if Black and White had had no opposing god, but was simply a sort of open-ended simulation where one could train one''s pet and mess with one''s followers without distraction, I probably would have liked it quite a bit more. My question is, has anyone considered developing such "games without winning" - let''s call them "software toys"? Have you ever had a concept which you discarded because it would be too hard to determine who "won"? Have certain games - RPGs in particular - been made less enjoyable because of the imposition of victory conditions, and what happens when a game with victory conditions is recast in a situation (massive multiplayer for instance) where victory is meaningless? Who''s winning Diablo II Battle.net? I think it''s worthwhile once in a while to question your basic assumptions, and I expect real innovation comes when you realize you''ve been doing things a certain way without really knowing why. Victory conditions are just one of many factors we take for granted in entertainment software. Go ahead and question some others while you''re at it. --------------------------------------------------- -SpittingTrashcan You can''t have "civilization" without "civil".

It seems like you still had goals in those examples you mentioned. The only difference is that you created the victory condition for yourself and decided when you achieved it. So what you''re proposing is to create games that are playgrounds where players are free to create their own goals. This is essentially what many of the Sim games do. In SimCity''s main game mode, you don''t have any victory conditions and you just build a city however you want. In fact, you could say you were playing Starcraft as a SimArmyBase game.

I think this works for a game like SimCity but I don''t think it works as well for other types of games. For example, how long did you explore the cities in Jet Grind Radio? It probably wouldn''t have held your interest as long as the main campaign mode. Think of GTA3. Sure it''s tons of fun going around driving, breaking, killing, and making your own goals. But how long would you be playing it if there weren''t any missions?

The reason why it works in SimCity but not in action games is that in SimCity, your actions take more time to create a result. Therefore, any goals, even player-made ones, are going to take a while to achieve. So player-made goals resemble developer-made goals. But in a game like GTA3, your actions create a result right away. You drive on the ramp, you will make a crazy jump. There aren''t any longer term goals that the player can set for themselves.

Older arcade games got by without a ending...you could never beat the game (if you were really good you could "roll over" the score...or even beat your previous scores)...but personnaly, I still play the classic Robotron at least once a week (a game with replay value!)...not to beat my scores, but to gain a sense of "mastering" it...which can never happen as I suck at it, but keep trying anyway

Another thing that very often happens in games is that the player takes on the direct role of the "hero"...so why not make the player a supporting character?

for example:

Set a game in some small town location...lots of families running around with a local park, schools, a dinner, police and fire station...basicly simular to the Sims but slightly larger in scope...However put the player in this enviroment as the family dog...you could run around exploreing and such, even interact with humans and subtley effect thier behavour. This has the bennifits of a traditional character basied game, in that the player has a onscreen avitar in the form of a dog - but the difference is that the dog, is just a dog (no super powers, etc), and by setting it in a open ended setting it could prove to be fun...

I love that dog game idea. It will need a very skillful dev team to make it work, however.

You should check out Animal Crossing for the Nintendo Game Cube. A very cute game, based on real time*, in which your goals in life are to get a nice house, collect all sorts of stuff, and generally just play. The 5x5 "acre" town has other inhabitants (the lineup changes as people move in and out of town), you can have 3 other human neighbors (only one can play at a time), and you can visit towns on other people''s memory cards. You can even sail off to an island if you connect your GameBoy Advance.

Really, though, the game is 100% about "play" - the only competition is artificial (the "I''ve got more money than you" really isn''t even that significant, as you can only buy so much a day). Big kudos to Nintendo for letting this one come across the pacific.

-scott

(*= when it''s 6pm in real life, it''s 6pm in the game.)

I was looking at the back of SimCity 3000 at work today and i knowticed that Computer Gaming World is quoted for calling it the best "software toy" to date.

"The human mind is limited only by the bounds which we impose upon ourselves." -iNfuSeD

the term "software toy" points to the experimental origins of game design: which is good

many games have forgotten their utility in this sense and only provide self-enclosed spaces to escape into: which is bad

designing "software toys" needn''t abandon goal oriented design, it simply requires terms that denote an indirect approach to game design.

I would suggest "synthesis" and "homogeneity" as goals to be engendered by software toys. Games require "synthesis" when multiple rules must be combined to create a uniform, or "homogenous", state.

read "Game Design Theory & Practice"!

Black & White is a (masterpiece!) sandbox. You don''t HAVE to click the gold scrolls. I spend about a week on the second world swallowing up the map with insanely large villages and Wonders (100000s of wood at a time!). Damn 2-year old graphics card nearly exploded.

********


A Problem Worthy of Attack
Proves It''s Worth by Fighting Back

quote: Original post by deClavier
many games have forgotten their utility in this sense and only provide self-enclosed spaces to escape into: which is bad

Perhaps this is because games are becoming more complicated and harder to develop. Adding open-endedness most certainly means it''s even tougher to develop, balance, and debug.