What should be players' object of the game?

Login to vote in this poll.

I think, players' object of the game should be the sharing news, ideas, hopes, and dream.
I just read the news article about Violent games affect behavior. From their research, they measured a type of brain activity which called p300 response. It was actually reflecting the emotional impact of an image. For example, when researcher showed the images of real life violence, people who plated violent video game were found to have a diminished response .It meant that people who played a lot of violent video games didn't see then as such different from neutral. Therefore, the users might be able to do some violent acting on the real life. However, if the users play the games to share news, ideas, hopes, and dreams. It might affect to their real life to do showing their hopes and dream.

A world created for sharing news, ideas, hopes, and dreams. Isn't that the main reason that games are made other than for entertainment? Games serve as an escape from reality, acting as virtual worlds where we can network and interact with other players while sharing our ideas and thoughts. It's a space where players feel more free to take on identities that they are comfortable with, since the gaming world is less bound by norms and rules that govern how we would normally act and behave in society. The expectations and stereotypes that others hold are likely to prevent us from straying from what we have come to be be thought of as or affiliated with. In time, we come to believe that maintaining our expected behavior and perpetuating accepted ideas makes life easier and helps keeps us away from trouble. However, with games, culture is produced since the nature of gaming involves the sharing of ideas and strategies. The gaming atmosphere should ultimately be embraced as a potential outlet for news, ideas, hopes, and dreams of players.

I would think the player's objective of the game is based on the context of the game and the player's personality. Honestly, there's never one sole reason as to why a person would a game. Take quiz/trivia-genre games for example. There would be some who play thinking it would be a more interesting way of studying (let's assume these games require quite some brain power to get through), and there are those who play just to test their own limits. And there're still those who play because learning random facts is just interesting. All players have their own reasons to play a game, but depending on the person's personality, the way players approach the game is fairly unpredictable.

I also agree that the objectives of the game should be broad and widespread without confining too much what a player should be able to achieve and do in the world because that creates an environment that will be welcoming to the most amount of people. If there was a limitation on what objectives can be completed, that would also limit the audience in which the game could reach out to and appeal to. The idea of this game is to interest as many different people as possible to gain the maximum amount of thought, idea, imagination, and perspective when molding the new political and societal thought that this game hopes to achieve. With a multitude of objectives, a wider variety of people would come and play.

Everyone is different in terms of their own perspective and goals in playing. The author has a valid in mentioning that the objective of the game should be subjective based instead of objective based. In the end, it is unpredictable why players approach the game. However, some may argue that there would be some basic factors that all players can agree on in playing the game - maybe the context is the term "fun." According to the definition of play, one of the main factors is 'fun.' We can incorporate this concept and view into this topic and see how that goes.

It doesn't really make sense to establish an objective for players in such a general sense. Essentially every game can be played for more than one reason, even things as general as playing a game for the sake of improving one's competitive finesse versus simply playing as a means to pass time automatically present different objectives within the game.

We also have to consider that the type of game would also have to play a role in defining and objective for a game. Things such as the medium, player quantity, and even complexity of the game all play significant roles in determining the game's objective.

If the game is a team for, for instance, the goal may be to play a role within the team to the best of your ability in order to increase the score of a team. A game played as an individual however is essentially going to be just about playing the game for oneself; making correct decisions or having mastery of the game's mechanics.

To reiterate, I couldn't agree more. The objective of a game must be subjective and contextual with a base on the type of game.

I agree, a player's objective depends on how they approach the game personally and culturally. There is a huge variety of games out there and each video game user has a particular preference and liking. Players may often display their amount of interest in a game by engaging in deep play, where they may even imagine themselves as the character they are playing with. If a player gets really into a game they may often display a particular amount of emotion with a win or a loss, depending on if it is that type of game. Games create a virtual world that players are able to associate themselves with during play, this is where the emotion part comes into play. Players may get focused enough into a game during play that they may often become emotionally attached or even addicted. This may often take place in competitive gaming where avatarial capitall is at stake.

I agree, much like the types of players we discussed in class with killers, achievers, socializer and adventurers it is important to keep a balanced ecosystem and so I believe there should be many flexible objectives to give the players the decision on how they want to interact with the world and define their own objective as they see fit.

I believe that the purpose of the game should be creating a world for sharing news, ideas, hopes, and dreams, because with a wide variety of users with different backgrounds and ideologies in the game, combined with the ability to share information through the medium of the Internet, that this would be an idea platform to exchange ideas and news. With increased participation in the game, users could bounce ideas back and forth between each other, resulting in an intellectual exchange of ideas and thoughts.

I'm a big believer in the exchange of knowledge, inspiration, hopes, and dreams. "Creating a world for sharing news, ideas, hopes, and dreams" would be an ideal objective in my perspective because this goes a long way how big our universe is and how this idea can bring to infinite realizations and inspirations in the sake of exchanging words with one another. It would be an amazing objective to converse in news, ideas, hopes, and dreams in order to elevate as individuals within our society in order to elevate as human beings. This allows us to gain other perspectives and maintain an open mind to intake others opinions. Inspiration is free, why not create a game that players objectively advocate towards the idea of the exchange in positive enlightenment?

Maybe I'm analyzing the FAQ wrong but it really feels as though many of the options listed are based within the constructs of our reality. I don't see how these choices relate to the four basic political tenets. I'm surprised something like "Make sure the four tenets are followed, all else is secondary" is not listed. If there are only four basic tenets that make up the political structure, I don't see why the object of the game has to be anything like the options listed above. Why can't the object of the game be simply to "Co-exist peacefully with your neighbor while following the four main beliefs".

"Receiving points for running a state that is efficient, increases its tax base, and avoids war"

The option listed above is one the more popular options. However, I don't really see how being efficient, increasing your tax base, and avoiding wars is in any way related to following the four basic tenets. They are great ways to manage a government sure, but is that really the point of the game? What if the possibility arises in which one has to choose between either following the four basic tenets or trying to complete the objective the game?

I think all of the above options should be the objective of the game. After all, there is no ultimate objective to the game and the options given should all be included and all be part of the possibilities to the game. This is a fantasy world and anything can happen, any possibilities can generate just like the real world we live in. There should not be a set objective because everyone's prospective is different. In fact, the game should have multiple possibilities that allow us to experience differently in ways that might not be available to us in our real world.

I agree with certain points that you have brought up but I can't help but disagree on other points. Yes this is a game, but it is a game that mimics our reality. It is not a fantasy world in which "anything can happen". With that said, I believe that you are right in that there should be no set objective. I touch upon this sentiment in my reasoning of why I voted the way I did. It seems odd to put us in a world that supposedly mimics or own while having set objectives that need to be followed. That is in my opinion, limiting not only the scope of the game, but also the player. Making it more of a "sandbox" type game in which each person is allowed to do whatever they want provided they follow certain basic rules (ie. the four tenets) seems a better way to go about the game.

The tricky part about coming up with one singular objective of the game is that in doing so we are defining what a successful state is. Clearly a state that avoids war and has a happy, well fed and economically stable population is ideal however who is to say that that is winning? Another person may believe that simply having a very efficient government is enough to win. For this reason, I really think the game should be more of a simulator of what a state or government would look like considering the factors. Perhaps before entering the game, their could be prompt where each player designates what "winning" means to him or her or stating an objective. For instance, my objective would be ensure that the per capita income of every household is $40,000 USD. Once the player reaches their own objective, they win!

I agree with you on how everyone's definition of ideal varies. The game should not have any singular objective. Once we reach such objective, does that mean the game is over and we are finished with the game? The game should be more of a simulator of a world with many possibilities just like the real world, where most people's definition of success and goal varies. Winning means that the game will eventually come to an end. However, if the standards of winning is not set and possibilities are available to the players to achieve, then the game will be more interesting and more lasting to the players who engage in this game.

I like your notion of self defined terms of winning. There would probably still have to be some presets...say 50-100 preset goals...so players don't get too crazy. In this sense, players would be able to work toward achievement of their own goals, not a predetermined singular goal. Also, it would provide the opportunity for players to play the game over and over with different objectives.

There should not be a single player objective such as winning political office because the essence of the game is to create an interactive image of a different politically structured world, not to figure out how to win political office or even how to run an efficient state. The point of the game is much broader. It is to see how life would be like if these four decrees were successfully implemented. Having multiple gaming interactions in which players can earn or lose points for will make the game more multi-dimensional and complex like real life. Furthermore, multiple objectives can serve as progress checks and encouragement to keep striving for completing more objectives to further their character.

From an anthropological point of view, it would be definitely interesting to see how the medium of the internet would create an intersection of cultural views and how this in turn would influence how ideas are formulated. Still as a political game, one would hope that these relations of information sharing and cultural sharing would become a global based politics rather than politics between states.