Should there be an object of the game, or should this be an interactive simulation, like Sim City?

Login to vote in this poll.

I personally think that there should be an objective to a game because a majority of the player's actions and decisions would be driven by the need to achieve that objective. While there is merit in the interactive simulation games that have its players gain avatarial capital, I believe those gains come secondary to the objective gains within the game. Although it seems that objectives of a game can mute out social interactions, there are many examples of games that are objective-based yet do not compromise the interactive simulation amongst players like Counter Strike or Call of Duty. In those examples, there is still freedom to travel the virtual maps which lend a type of playing environment that facilitates exploration. You are also engaging in the camaraderie and teamwork of other players which interact all types of subjective experiences, logic, and gameplay. There is a lot of liberty in playing these types of games (both in exploring and in social interaction) and yet there are clear objectives for the players to complete. The interactive simulations are good to give a sense of realness, however I think it's the main goal or objective of the game that will drive the player into continue engagement.

I believe the game should require an overall objective. For instance, I would like to see a max level but once that is reached I do not want that to be the end of the game. I would honestly like to see an open end objective like an MMO. Many MMO's have have an overall objective which is to get the max level but once that is done your game isn't over. Instead of the game ending because you reached max level, in reality that is when the game actually begins. So in a way I would like to see both objectives incorporated into one game. Just like Fallen Earth's Online player progressive system. The game takes place in a post-apocalyptic wasteland located around the American Grand Canyon. Fallen Earth's game-play features FPS/RPG hybridization with hundreds of items including improvised equipment and weapons, a real-time, in-depth crafting system which includes vehicles, various skills and abilities, factions and tactical PvP. So meanwhile you can level to your max level but once that has happened the game is not over, you still can fight for control of your faction or become a trader/crafter for good or evil.

There should be some sort of object of the game where as a player you can improve your character or account. There should be some sort of reward system for making good decisions, and likewise some punishment for making bad decisions. Playing the game similar to the Sims where there isn't much of anything to improve yourself does not give me motivation to continue playing for long. I like to know that I am improving or making some sort of progress in the game, something as a comparator of myself to other players of the game. Much like some MMO's, they give out quests or certain tasks the player can do to improve their character. However, they also have the option to freely explore the world. I believe this can reach out and keep a wide range of audiences interested where they can explore the world and the game much like the Sims, but can also perform some tasks to improve themselves.

I think there should be an object to a game. First of all i hate games like The Sims because I can't compete. I need to compete in some way when im playing video because to me its more entertaining. Games that have an incentive allow the player to put effort into play and thus become more entertained especially when playing a friend. This is where online gaming comes into play. Online gaming is for competitive users who want a challenge and who desire a reward as a result of winning, even if that result is simply bragging rights. Games without an objective or a goal, regardless of their endless possibilities can lead to boredom because you are simply living a potential realistic life, only virtually. Games with an objective have negative and positive effects on a gamer. The negative effects can come as a result of loss which will often discourage a player whether they are playing a friend or a computer simulation. Playing a game such as The Sims lacks the excitement that a game such as Zelda or Madden NFL is full of. Yes, players who play The Sims may get pleasure out of living a life through an avatar that they can only dream of in real life but you cannot get the same excitement that was intended in the establishment of video games without a goal or objective.

I think the game should be purely a simulation because it is a game that created a fantasy world with its own rules that allows many player to join this world and "live" under its rules and "experience" what different systems would bring to them. To have an object to the game means that a certain possibility will be developed meaning that no matter what happens, there will be certain results. This limits the imagination and possibilities to the game because anything can happen in this world just like anything can happen in our world as well.

I agree. If a player is given a concrete objective to the game, then that player's decisions and actions will be based mostly on trying to reach that objective. This may prevent players from exploring certain places or doing certain things in the game that they might have done without the objective. It also almost guarantees that a certain outcome in the game will happen (since the players will be working towards it), which seems to ruin the idea of influencing and experiencing a political alternative to our current world. Perhaps a vague, more general objective can be used for the game, like gaining skills or experience, where a player can choose what they want to learn or where they want to explore. An general objective will get someone to start playing and continue playing as they become more immersed in the game.

I think the game would actually benefit from having a primary objective because it would provide an initial incentive for playing the game. For example, the goal of World of Warcraft was to complete the quests and defeat the final bosses. However, what resulted from the game was an entire social environment where players can interact and travel/fight together. These connections grew so large that players would actually meet outside of the game and discuss various things with each other. A lot of people have this misconception that once the player accomplishes his or her mission, they would no longer play the game. However, if you look at World of Warcraft, the object is so hard to achieve that it causes people to work together.

I think if the game were based levels and there was an object to the game it would defeat the purpose of this whole thing. It would institute rules and competition, perhaps creating alliances between people/states which could further perpetuate things like tyranny and world wars. It would be best to have it be based on something like the Sims where people participate in a world that reflects the choices they make to live the life they want. Since many institutions would not exist in this world that exist in the current reality of our society, I feel their would be more of a chance to pursue whatever a person wanted to do. I have to agree with what someone else already say... having an object to the game would put boundaries on the game and not let it live out to its full potential. There are already inherent rules and objectives to the game if there were levels or things like that that would take the player off the path of what the game is supposed to be.

I think that the game should be a simulation, because I think the players would lose interest if there was an object to the game and they already accomplished it, then they would just lose interest and never play it afterward. The reason why people play games like Sims and World of Warcraft and keep coming back to it is because of the social networking and the constant new features that are being added to it interest the players more and keeps them wanting to come back and play. I think players will learn more if there is no main objective attached to the game, it's better to have variety of goals for players to reach, as well as various opportunities that players can choose to accomplish and reach on their own.

I agree with this concept of simulation. If a game was based on other forms of media like movies or books, they would not be engaged continuously over and over. Once the objective of the game is finished, essentially the player has achieved their intended goal, and the reason for playing the game would diminish. Putting aside educational factors, many people view games simply as an escape from the reality of things they normally have no control over, and a simulation like Sim City gets as close to manipulating this control over life and the world around them without ever having to leave your house.

I totally agree about the social networking and constant updates to the game. In today's society, online computer games that require intensive interactive game play, MMO(Massively Multiplayer Online) games for example, can be played forever as it seems like. This is because you are playing with real people who you can interact with and there are always constant new patches that allow the user to play new material all the time. In my opinion, when I play a game and complete the main objective, I then stop playing the game as there feels like there is nothing else to do. Goals that players create for them selves and accomplish for them selves would be better and this will allow players to have a variety of goals for them to achieve.

I agree with Isabelle. The game should be simulation. The game should be for entertainment for and social networking. I used to be an avid Sim City player and have watched the original Sim City evolve from Sim City 2000, 3000, and presently 4. When I played it I focused mainly on entertainment and would communicate with other players in terms of how to create my city and be a productive state in the nation of Sim City. I never focused masterying the game, but I did make sure my city had complete power, water, and the people living in my city were happy. In short, I used the game as a simulation.

I agree with you. The game should be for social networking and not have a certain set objective. In a interaction game like this, object are goals seem to be pointless because in everyone should have their own objective and goal. Setting one not only limits the game, it also take away the interesting part of the game, that is, the possibility to create and develop.

I agree with the fact that this should be a simulated game, however, I don't know that the reason is because there would be a loss of interest if there was an objective. If the objective is difficult enough to achieve and remains an ongoing challenge for players, they will be interested and entertained, while also being able to engage in the social networking and new features. I think a simulated game would be more appealing but some sort of an objective is necessary as well so one can see where the game is taking them and that there is a point to playing it.

I also agree with this the fact that the game should be a simulation game, and I also agree with the comment that the players would not lose interest. In any simulation circumstance, I believe that the interest would continue on as players learn more about the game and their position in it. In this regard, I also think that the social media aspect of it will enable relationships like facebook or online games have deemed. I also believe that in any new media, there is an individual that wants to understand the game to its potential and become masters in it. So through time, I believe that groups will be created within the game and progress itself into an interactive world.

I completely agree with you regarding the simulation that should be in the game. One of the things that does bring individuals into the online game world is the visual stimulation along with the networking within the gaming community. This particular game I believe should have a balance of not only visual/social importance but also objectivity. The games objectivity I think is key in separating it from a multitude of games online that do not have a political and educational possibility at their core and I think this balance will highlight that objective while also bringing many players to the site

This game should be a simulation because it would be difficult to find a specific objective or to keep players from only concentrating on the objective if there was one and therefore loosing sight of other issues . I think that allowing the game to lead you or develop accordingly to social interactions and other events would be more interesting since the player would not be expecting any specific turnout.

When there is no particular set objective there is increased ability for the player and the game to develop into unique ways. For instance, by having a main object there is an encouragement for competition and thus the goal of the game becomes winning instead of the learning process throughout the game, which I argue is more important to the benefit of the game and the player as a whole. When it's a win or lose situation, the goal then becomes winning without an understanding of the meaning and motives behind the game. Without positioning the game as motive-based, it is more realistic.

I definitely agree with this... it does not allow the game to naturally develop into something else that perhaps it couldn't if there was an object to the game. It changes the dynamic of the game and perhaps completely opposes the ideas originally set up for the game. By having an objective, there is more of a chance to create political institutions to gain more control over certain aspects of the game in order to win. When competition is the main objective, it blinds the players into looking beyond that aspect and living a more harmonious life amongst other citizens. Like you said, there is a win or lose situation and this does not make things equal. Things should be played out naturally to see how it evolves and what comes from having no motive or objective in going from day to day life... it could go a different direction than we even thought it could go, and perhaps it would lead to this aspect of having an objective, but it would happen naturally.

There should be a variety of objects in the game available to the player. The game World of War Craft (commonly known as WOW) is an example of this. The main object of the game is to reach "level 75" with your player, such based on abilities, strenght and experience in battles. However the way by which one may reach this varies endlessly through each individuals' selection of acitivies they choose to participate in or objectives they wish to accomplish. One may ask "what happens when the players reach the top level? What then? The designers of WOW have continually upgraded the game in various ways so that the player does not become uninterested. I feel that such would be an appropriate way for the game to be structured, in that players will have the choice to engage in a variety of actions for self-improvement, or self-destruction for that matter. Though there is the argument that having an objective in the game may place interest in that objective alone and nothing else, it can also be argued that not having an objective can become pointless and meaningless to the players. There must be a reason, a motive for the players to engage in every time they play.

if there was an object to the game, wouldnt it essentially be the online version of the boardgame Risk? we'd all play strategically...

There needs to be some object to the game to keep players engaged and provide some guidlines for their actions. I do not think this will detract from the realistic nature of the game as long as the objectives are presented in an appropriate fashion, nor do I feel sim city is all that realistic itself. The problem with sim city is that it is too much of a free-for-all where players treat the game as an escape from reality rather than an alternative version of reality. The enjoyment of sim city does not come from simulating boring, dull life in the game but by having a realistic appearance in which players can project their imagination on, doing things out of the ordinary without having to face any real consequences. For example, a sim city player may build a bunch of amusement parks on an interesting whim or knock down all the school buildings as a way to let out their frustration after getting a bad grade on a test in the real world.

Real life has a good deal of structure, goal-oriented intentions, and predictability. Establishing player objectives will provide structure and predictable intentions, making it more realistic and be more engaging by setting up challenges for the players to overcome and the enriching feeling of achieving specific goals. Real life presents people with a set of objectives at different stages of life from which people choose from. For example, during early childhood, children decide what toys they want to play with, at adolescence there are many other categories of objectives people choose from (i.e. education, peer relations, sports, community organizations, etc.) and in adulthood they decide what kind of employment they want to strive for. The completion of certain objectives opens the door to new objectives. The game should reflect this notion by presenting players with a set of optional objectives in which they can check which ones they want. Then they work towards completing these objectives, choosing their actions carefully as they may undermine some objectives while furthering others and so the challenge is making decisions that will maximize the potential of completing all objectives overall. Continuously throughout the game at certain stages, new objective choices should appear in which players must choose from. Having no objectives will cause players to mindlessly do things, or do things only possible in one's imagination and the virtual gaming world. Thus, objectives are necessary for some game structure and to keep players fully immersed in the game.

I disagree. The game should not have an 'object' for the very same reason that you say it should - to be representative of reality. Yes, real life can be structured and predictable but I hesitate to conclude that there is some sort of to life, an ultimate goal that can be realized by those who 'play' well. Instead, reality is random and complex; the object of my life may be different from someone else's and is particular to every individual. In games like 'Sim City' there are still 'objective choices' to be made in order to get somewhere, and I think that this game would benefit if players were presented with these choices and decisions. However, in creating a sole object to the game we are depicting life as a being a 'win or lose' type situation. Instead, the game should not recognize any choice as the 'right' choice but should allow actions and decisions to impact players in the same way they do in the real world: through offering new opportunities and creating new results. I agree that structuring the game so that when people make a decision a potential 'door' is opened would create incentive and immerse players. This aspect of the game can exist without creating an actual object to the game that a player would try to realize.

the fear of having an object to the game and trying to have a mastery of the object is that it would limit the full capacities of the game itself. instead of having one chief focus, why not allow for multiple areas of reward where reward itself is intrinsic to the new budding features that one encounters. similarily i think how players are rewarded should change over time depending on how many new players enter the game and how interconnected around the globe this game becomes. surely then we will see how subjective each person's objective to this game is

the game should be a simulation game similar to that of Sim City because this allows for more cause and effect situations to blossom and the reward system would be more closely related to that of the real world. a lot of people believe that games like Sim City are about as close to real life as a game is able to reach resulting in the most compelling scenarios spurning from player interactions. the simulation would reflect things and ideas the players believe are faulty in society or show how people are able to take advantage of the systems intact to run a society. however with this said even in a simulation and in reality as well there would have to be an object that the people are trying to reach. in the real world people see the object of their lives as being bearers of children, accumulating wealth, bettering the world, or even just having fun. this would be reflected in the simulation as well, regardless of the set up and there would also be people who would be able to reach a sense of mastery by achieving this object or goal.