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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 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.
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.
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.