Its still only a start, because there is so much to do beyond that.

This is sort of my point, but the other way around. I get all the modeling and uv unwrapping and I have several ideas. I have bunches of testing demos for games and stuff. But I began to wonder "what is a game really?"

This opened me up to new ideas as far as making electronic games is concerned. So I saw that there is much more beyond just the modeling and the programming and the cool ideas.

I figure that if I ask the average game programmer or level design artist or character design artist if they can tell me the role game mechanics play in the game they are working on, they might not be able to elaborate.

I guess it is because I am more of the engineer type. I have to know all the pieces and how they all work together. I have to have a clear idea of what is going on at all times.

They call game theory the "Theory of social situations."

That has to be important in games, if not the most important aspect above all else.

Is this a discussion about discussing game design? Would that make this thread a meta-discussion?

Is this a discussion about discussing game design? Would that make this thread a meta-discussion?

Ehh. I think we are discussing game design, and how my "game" is not really a game.

Or it could be that we are discussing my ignorance as to what game design actually is. Haha.

If making a game is making cool graphics and such with cool characters and neat ideas. I got it. But if there is actually more to what is required to actually make a game (considering all things gaming) then perhaps I have a lot to learn.

Is this a discussion about discussing game design? Would that make this thread a meta-discussion?

Ehh. I think we are discussing game design, and how my "game" is not really a game.

Or it could be that we are discussing my ignorance as to what game design actually is. Haha.

If making a game is making cool graphics and such with cool characters and neat ideas. I got it. But if there is actually more to what is required to actually make a game (considering all things gaming) then perhaps I have a lot to learn.

If you're struggling to understand what traits make something a game, then it might be easiest to focus on things that are simple rather than complex:

Is rock-paper-scissors a game? Why, or why not?

Is rock-paper-scissors a game? Why, or why not?

I'd say yea it is.

My reasoning, though juvenile, is that you have an objective, things that prevent you from doing the objective, rules, and a reward for completing the objective.

This is how I broke down what I have been learning about games. And I do believe all games that are are actually games have at least the first and last element.

I call it:

OORR WE DO

Objective

Obstacles

Rules

Reward(s)

Weakness

Exploit

Defend

Offend

I can explain the latter part if you want. haha.

orymus3 said:

Actually, game theory has very little to do with making games.

tutorial doctor said:

I mean game theory.

Um, what?

tutorial doctor said:

Or it could be that we are discussing my ignorance as to what game design actually is. Haha.

That's what I've been perceiving here. What game design is, and also what terminology we use in the game industry. When you say "game theory," do you mean "game design principles"? Because "game theory" is a math thing (not so much a game design thing).