I think the game would fun and engaging if there was some sort of point system that allowed players to see how they are doing relative to other players.
I agree- i feel like a game like this needs some sort of point system to act as an incentive. Points will also add a more competitive edge to the game as well as make it more engaging. Without a point system I honestly believe that i would get very bored and lose interest. I also feel that people will be more envested in the game if they have a goal- for instance to hit a certain amount of points or to make it to a certain level. I feel this game would be boring and pointless without some other external motivation besides the pure experience of playing.
a game with no winner discourages people to even play that game. granted there are children games where everyone wins or there is no winner, but those games such as hanky panky or tag or hide n go seek don't involve much intellectual contemplations.
in being rewarded for X, it is logical to assume that players will strive for X much more then if there were no reward. people have an innate desire for recognition when it comes to games as well. people who play games better want some way of recognition that they are better players.
I understand why it seems practical to have points as incentive - the reward will encourage players to not only participate but to try their 'best'. However, a system of points seems both unrealistic and oversimplified to me. I can't imagine a world where every time you have mastered something or attained a skill you are awarded a number of 'points' - often time the achievement goes unrecognized or does not yield immediate results. I understand that people have a 'desire for recognition' but I think that the point system fails to recognize the complex reasons for why people do certain things and such a system will simplify this interaction to "player A does action B and gets reward C". This does not seem to conducive to a game that strives to stretch the boundaries of the way people think about the world.
I would have to agree with much of what skeadie had to say above, but would also like to further elaborate as to why a point system would not be a good idea.
First, the questions asks about distributing points that are then ranked in comparison to other users, thus allowing competition for points. I'm not entirely sure that this is the result most would enjoy, because, my second point, any system of point distribution would be entirely and completely arbitrary.
If a point system is determined, then there must be guidelines for point distribution, which would in turn create an arbitrary hierarchy of goals and actions. Who is to decide what points are given for what? This vague system could only result in inequalities within the agora world... probably not ideal!
As far as game mastery, I feel mastery should not be determined by points, but instead by personal achievement. This achievement would be independent of all other players and would more or less be a personal evaluation of mastery. Setting goals and creating a system of random, but mandatory personal evaluations on progress made towards those goals could be a way of both checking individual progress, and causing personal reflection and motivation to fulfill those personal goals. Of course, this is only a hypothetical possibility. I feel a system like this would not require a winner, but would be more intellectually intriguing than say 'hanky panky' or tag.
I would have to disagree with alexaesthetics that “a game with no winners discourages people to even play that game.” To think in that manner is to put limitations on the purpose of this game and it is to follow the mentality of a capitalist society, something that I think agoraXchange strives to expand beyond. Why must we feel the need to be rewarded and recognized for doing good? Is doing good because you want to be rewarded morally right? The mastery of this game should not be driven by incentive for recognition, having a means to an end.
As for a response to whether or not we could achieve a point system, I would have to say the only possible way I could see a point system working would be based on number of times a person participated in the game including mere visitations of the website without postings. But even then the point system would not accurately reflect a participant’s mastery of the game itself. Having a point system would create incentives but are the incentives to gain more points than another player mean that they have mastered the game? I must agree with math.jackson that the game mastery should be determined by personal achievement that is independent of all other players.
even in simulations there is an objective for those simulations. players can stray from that objective but there is always an objective. if game mastery were determined by personal achievement that is independent of all other players then....
what would happen? i would master the game by....
if you don't propose an objective especially against other players you won't have a purpose for this game.and no way to measure yourself in comparison to others.
perhaps what i am confused about is the concept of "game"
is this suppose to be a game or what really is this suppose to be?
I think that because this is a game, having a point system would help the players engage more. I know that points as an incentive should not be what makes people be interested in problems that affect our world, but I do think that a competitive game would encourage players to participate and this would lead to more awareness in regards to the problems the game is targeting.
I agree with idalia226 in that points would make the game more engaging. It also makes the game competitive, which is an aspect of the real world. But how the competition in the game differs from competition in the real world, is that the game is serving a purpose of making the world better for all people.
The points would be "engaging" but I think you are wise to ask whether this competition that the game would simulate is even comparable to that of the real world. I reiterate my point again: what would we equate points with in the real world? How is a point system - in any way - helpful in creating a game that challenge hegemonic societal ideals? I think that the disadvantages of a point system outweigh the positive, "engaging" aspects.
I agree that points would be engaging but I chose no points because the point system can attempt to establish something beyond what we originally intended - for example the creation of a self-serving agenda that only pays attention to gain. We need to not be so opportunistic and allow our states to process originally, without any sort of aggrandizement. Points will contrive the game and make us think otherwise. Maybe later when we feel more competitive it can emerge.
I think the game would fun and engaging if there was some sort of point system that allowed players to see how they are doing relative to other players.
Hi Molly,
Why do you say this? What's so great about points and competition? Not sure why you favor this position. Please say more.
JS
I agree- i feel like a game like this needs some sort of point system to act as an incentive. Points will also add a more competitive edge to the game as well as make it more engaging. Without a point system I honestly believe that i would get very bored and lose interest. I also feel that people will be more envested in the game if they have a goal- for instance to hit a certain amount of points or to make it to a certain level. I feel this game would be boring and pointless without some other external motivation besides the pure experience of playing.
a game with no winner discourages people to even play that game. granted there are children games where everyone wins or there is no winner, but those games such as hanky panky or tag or hide n go seek don't involve much intellectual contemplations.
in being rewarded for X, it is logical to assume that players will strive for X much more then if there were no reward. people have an innate desire for recognition when it comes to games as well. people who play games better want some way of recognition that they are better players.
I understand why it seems practical to have points as incentive - the reward will encourage players to not only participate but to try their 'best'. However, a system of points seems both unrealistic and oversimplified to me. I can't imagine a world where every time you have mastered something or attained a skill you are awarded a number of 'points' - often time the achievement goes unrecognized or does not yield immediate results. I understand that people have a 'desire for recognition' but I think that the point system fails to recognize the complex reasons for why people do certain things and such a system will simplify this interaction to "player A does action B and gets reward C". This does not seem to conducive to a game that strives to stretch the boundaries of the way people think about the world.
I would have to agree with much of what skeadie had to say above, but would also like to further elaborate as to why a point system would not be a good idea.
First, the questions asks about distributing points that are then ranked in comparison to other users, thus allowing competition for points. I'm not entirely sure that this is the result most would enjoy, because, my second point, any system of point distribution would be entirely and completely arbitrary.
If a point system is determined, then there must be guidelines for point distribution, which would in turn create an arbitrary hierarchy of goals and actions. Who is to decide what points are given for what? This vague system could only result in inequalities within the agora world... probably not ideal!
As far as game mastery, I feel mastery should not be determined by points, but instead by personal achievement. This achievement would be independent of all other players and would more or less be a personal evaluation of mastery. Setting goals and creating a system of random, but mandatory personal evaluations on progress made towards those goals could be a way of both checking individual progress, and causing personal reflection and motivation to fulfill those personal goals. Of course, this is only a hypothetical possibility. I feel a system like this would not require a winner, but would be more intellectually intriguing than say 'hanky panky' or tag.
I would have to disagree with alexaesthetics that “a game with no winners discourages people to even play that game.” To think in that manner is to put limitations on the purpose of this game and it is to follow the mentality of a capitalist society, something that I think agoraXchange strives to expand beyond. Why must we feel the need to be rewarded and recognized for doing good? Is doing good because you want to be rewarded morally right? The mastery of this game should not be driven by incentive for recognition, having a means to an end.
As for a response to whether or not we could achieve a point system, I would have to say the only possible way I could see a point system working would be based on number of times a person participated in the game including mere visitations of the website without postings. But even then the point system would not accurately reflect a participant’s mastery of the game itself. Having a point system would create incentives but are the incentives to gain more points than another player mean that they have mastered the game? I must agree with math.jackson that the game mastery should be determined by personal achievement that is independent of all other players.
even in simulations there is an objective for those simulations. players can stray from that objective but there is always an objective. if game mastery were determined by personal achievement that is independent of all other players then....
what would happen? i would master the game by....
if you don't propose an objective especially against other players you won't have a purpose for this game.and no way to measure yourself in comparison to others.
perhaps what i am confused about is the concept of "game"
is this suppose to be a game or what really is this suppose to be?
I think that because this is a game, having a point system would help the players engage more. I know that points as an incentive should not be what makes people be interested in problems that affect our world, but I do think that a competitive game would encourage players to participate and this would lead to more awareness in regards to the problems the game is targeting.
I agree with idalia226 in that points would make the game more engaging. It also makes the game competitive, which is an aspect of the real world. But how the competition in the game differs from competition in the real world, is that the game is serving a purpose of making the world better for all people.
The points would be "engaging" but I think you are wise to ask whether this competition that the game would simulate is even comparable to that of the real world. I reiterate my point again: what would we equate points with in the real world? How is a point system - in any way - helpful in creating a game that challenge hegemonic societal ideals? I think that the disadvantages of a point system outweigh the positive, "engaging" aspects.
I agree that points would be engaging but I chose no points because the point system can attempt to establish something beyond what we originally intended - for example the creation of a self-serving agenda that only pays attention to gain. We need to not be so opportunistic and allow our states to process originally, without any sort of aggrandizement. Points will contrive the game and make us think otherwise. Maybe later when we feel more competitive it can emerge.