In a game with dynamic(non-deterministc/procedual/what ever you want to call it.) content. Is it nessary to have a way to win the game? My current idea has ways you can lose, but essentially the game itself can go on for for as long as the player cares to play. There may or may not be story line I haven''t decieded yet. There is in game development as the player gains access to more resources and options but there is no point at which the game is won. It can be lossed but not won. So I guess my question is that okay? Or would players have problem with the fact that the game never ends? You acchomplish goals throughout the game which adds to your score. But ultimetly the game ends whenever the player has had enough and wants to start over again. ----------------------------------------------------- Writer, Programer, Cook, I''m a Jack of all Trades Current Design project Chaos Factor Design Document

I don''t remember any victory conditions to Sim City.

I claimed victory when it ran out of resources and all the public services stopped working :o)

Tetris doesn''t have a win condition (at least, in most versions). Pinball doesn''t have a win condition. Most sim games don''t have win conditions.

"Sneftel is correct, if rather vulgar." --Flarelocke

In the case of the above post, evidently they are not required if the player themselves sets the victory conditions, The Sims being another example.

this is not about dinamics issue but neverending game

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
be good
be evil
but do it WELL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

quote: Original post by ch1pz
In the case of the above post, evidently they are not required if the player themselves sets the victory conditions, The Sims being another example.

The player doesn''t have to set victory conditions. I know when I play tetris, I don''t have "victory conditions" in mind.

"Sneftel is correct, if rather vulgar." --Flarelocke

Hmm... There are a number of configurations that don''t require concrete "The End" game-winning scenarios. Escape Velocity is a good example. Grand Theft Auto III or Vice City had "victory" conditions, of a sort, but the actual plot''s end was no end to the game. I''ve played GTA3 for hours and hours after the story ended, and found myself entertained by the world and the gameplay.

It should be noted that in the above examples, the story ended, but objectives remained. EV had a number of "missions" that could be encountered in bars or spaceports that allowed you to explore areas, obtain ship upgrades, or modify your reputation. Even after you were just what you wanted to be, there was always profit to be made, planets to conquer, and pirates to fight. GTA had races to retry, money to make, and "easter eggs" to find.

In these ways, these games shifted in focus from "story-based" to "score-based". Once you got all the bonuses, running taxi missions or racking up dough or beating your best time on an obstacle course was much like topping your score at Galaga or optimizing your police coverage in Sim City.

I''m not sure what your idea is, but if you have an open-ended world, then your game is like an RPG with no main story. Only "side-quests" or "mini-games" within an interactive world. Objectives can exist, but won''t be properly termed "victory conditions". Even with a story, like GTA or True Crime, it is possible to play and fully enjoy the game without holding fast to it. It''s not an uncommon phenomenon in games, and you should have little trouble implementing it. Of course, you can always improve upon it, and innovate. I''d like to know more about your idea.

I played sim city a lot and it was nice but I HATED that it didn't had victory conditions.

However I play tetris and I don't care. Because in tetris you do have a goal, to get the best score. However a round of sim city was too slow and long for me to check if I did better than before.

Besides I play games with no ending, score based, when I'm waiting for a short time, like waiting for someone to reply on msn and things like that. A game with lots of loading wouldn't acomplish the task.

So I want a game that can be as complex and fun as posible, score based, and fast, if it's never ending. I think that in GTA3 you can set yourself goals, but in Sim city the gameplay is too slow to wait for your results and try again if you failed.

EDIT: Also probably is a good idea to make the game multiplayer so you can compete against other human players.

[edited by - Coz on December 14, 2003 11:18:20 AM]

Sims can''t have victory conditions by design, because they are simulations and not games. Players can create simulated victory conditions like build this city out or whatever, but that is going on inside the player(s) heads, not in the design itself. Sims are sandboxes, for the most part. Games like tetris don''t have a clear victory condition but possibly, possibly an implied one, where the condition of victory is to overcoming increasingly more difficult challenge design and eventually beating all the levels that were designed. I don''t know, because I have never played tetris to the point where the game had nothing more to throw at me challenge wise. Surviving every challenge the game can throw at you might be the implied victory condition.

I know it''s a sim but it could have things like, building a city with certain amount of money limit total, in a limited time, and with certain amount of buildings, and make crime as low as something and stuff like that. Like an ''story'' mode and a ''free'' that is the sim we know.

And the thing is, here people are considering it like a game even tought it isn''t