Should the game require positive outcomes only, or should it allow for negative ones as well?

Login to vote in this poll.

I voted that the game should include both positive and negative outcomes, because that way a players decisions would have value and a player cannot just expect a certain outcome no matter what he or she does in the game. Just like in reality, both positive and negative outcomes have the ability to teach and inspire. It is interesting to see the results of our actions.

tong

like most of the movie the negative outcome could give the player/audience more effectï¼›if the game is only have positive outcome will be forgotten easily. A meta-analysis by Anderson and Bushman (2001) showed that violent video game use was significantly related to aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, and physiological arousal, and negatively related to helping behavior. So we believe game should require positive and negative outcome

It really depends on the type of game. I believe that most of games are reflecting the real life. Therefore , the game should make balance to show the negative output and positive output. In the game, developer normally put some negative contants(i will contants as outputs) in order to maximize the entertaining part in their game. However , when playing the game, people(maybe kinds) can pick up some language and behavior from the game. Developers might need to show the some positive output which can improve the teamwork and cooperation when they played game with others.

The game should have both positive and negative outcomes for the decisions that the player makes to imitate real world consequences and have a sense of responsibility for their characters and world for their choices. This would cause the player to think more about what they do in this virtual world, rather than just doing what ever they feel like. If there were only positive outcomes, that would be too unrealistic and there would be no consequences for any ones actions in the game which would defeat any chance of the game immersing a player in its virtual world. Conversely, if there were only negative outcomes, it would probably turn the player off from playing. While the idea of "winning" is abstract, always "losing" with negative outcomes would not be fun for anyone. A balance is needed to not only imitate the real world, but to keep players intrigued and add interest to their choices in the world.

The reason I voted for both negative and positive outcome was that by making it have both outcome it will enable the game to be more balanced and interesting. I was reading the comments and I agree with Balistreri that choices that you make should affect and have it have consequences, such as your reputation going down and becoming unpopular, or going up and become a "hero" of some sort. Moreover, depending on the choices one makes, you could have the game change, therefore making it reformat itself so that the game is unique to each player. It is one idea that would be very cool to implement, I don't know if there are any other games that already do this, but basically maybe have an algorithm that takes into account all the choices that the player makes and depending on those it changes the game play for the player, therefore making it more interesting and enjoyable for everyone.

I believe the game should consist of both negative and positive outcomes. The game should have a real world effect to it, just like how our society is today. The game should also show how each player is effected by the choice they make, just like the Fallout's karma system. If one has a system with just a positive outcome it will surely lead to a boring and uninteresting outcome due to the fact that it lacks consequence's. However, if the games has a pure negative system then there is no reward in causing havoc and anarchy all the time. There must be a good between risk vs reward.

I agree. Without a risk/reward scenario, there simply is no point to playing the game. Allowing for only one type of outcome is a serious drawback: The player knows that no matter what actions he/she takes, there is no significant change to reverse the earlier chain of events. Upon reaching this realization, most players would just lose interest and see no point in further participation.

Definitely agree. The Fallout system, and other systems like it seems to have a steep climb in popularity, because of the fact that you, as the player, will be allowed to choose your own road in the game. If a game has purely positive outcomes, it becomes almost a childish game, as its meant to just entertain you or make you laugh for some time. A game with purely negative choices will have no point to it (unless you're a person that likes to just see the bad in things), as negative outcomes cannot come out to anything greater or any progress. The risk vs reward I do not agree with on so much. Instead of risk vs reward, I believe it should be more reward and punishment. Risks do not necessarily mean that there's a negative outcome, and rewards are purely positive. Punishment and Reward can be given on both sides of the spectrum.

It's important to put an emphasis on both the positive and negative outcomes in order to simulate the real world. Most gamers can relate to the fact that a lot of times when we are bored with a single game, we like to "ruin" the game by cheating or killing someone or purposely doing something bad to see the short term consequences of those actions and then promptly reload the game to an earlier save point to avoid the long term consequences of their actions. However in a multi-player game, we are more inclined to behavior accordingly from fear of facing some long-term, realistic consequences.

Another analogy might be parents who only reward good behavior or punish bad behavior. It's probably more effective overall to do both sides of the coin rather than just one.

If we were to only have good outcomes to this simulation/game, we only experience one side of things, where players know they cannot incur any long term negative effects to their character so they won't take it as seriously as they would a game that both penalizes and rewards you both in the long and short term.

I voted that the game require to have both positive and negative outcomes. The game should have a real world feel to it. The actions a player makes in the game should also be faced with the consequences of those actions, whether it makes the player rich or poor, or any other types of positive and negative consequences. If I am playing a game where I know that no matter what I do, I will ultimately end up with something positive, it does not make me want to make smart decisions and think about my actions within the game. On the other hand, a player could take the GTA approach and purposely create negative actions knowing that they will still be in the clear at the end of it all.

I agree with your point in terms of games should provide both positive and negative outcomes for the participants. Since the players are participating in different actions and different decision makings which they also learn to make meanings and senses through the play. They should be taught and inform about the consequences of the actions they did whether its positive or negative. For example, by doing the action of killing in the virtual world, there should be bloody images and violent acts that comes with the action so the player would learn about the consequences of violence and harming others which make meaning to their lives in the reality. Since the players were notified about the consequences of their important decision and action can be harmful, they may stop and reconsider it when they are about to commit it in their real life.

I agre with you, especially with your statement of the need for a "real world feel" to the game. Because this game already lends a virtual climate that fosters a lot of player freedom, the player should also have the freedom to make his or her own decisions and accept whatever those consequences of those action may be: thus revealing an array of possible outcomes that run the gamut of rewarding, positive consequences or punishing, negative consequences. But just like in the real world and in the human condition of learning people will generally avoid future punishment and will continue to strive for a net-reward. There is a growth in the virtual game as well as a sense of maturity gained if players are confronted with negative outcomes, that cannot be achieve with positive outcomes alone.

I agree with your comment, and I could definitely see people running amok and not taking the game as seriously if they were able to simply do whatever they wanted with no negative consequences for their choices in the end. I think GTA is a great example of that concept to an extreme, where people can do horrendous things to alter the gameplay, but with no real effect on the ending whatsoever.

Since this game would be a collaborative, multiplayer experience, the idea of people being able to do anything they wanted without consequence could potentially ruin this synergistic effort between players.

Although I voted for positive outcomes only in part to be the devil's advocate, I do feel that there is some logic to it. Being that the message of agoraXchange is to find a way to "recreate" a world without mass suffering, hunger, or inequality, the general direction of the "game" should be concentrated around the idea of reinventing a world for the better. As is the case with almost any other game, in which only positive "wins" advance the player or storyline, positive outcomes are what is truly of interest here. And while it is true that a simulation is most real when there are no boundaries and that sometimes a "loss" can teach one more about victory than winning, from a practical standpoint, limiting participants to working toward positive outcomes would be the most effective way to finding one.

while i agree with some of your ideas behind wanting positive outcomes, there shouldn't be only positive outcomes because as another reply states, this defeats the purpose of the game in my eyes. Without the possibility of some kind of negative outcome or failure, there would be no interest or feeling of achievement from "winning" or gaining the positive outcome. There needs to be limits and consequences for a players decisions or else the game loses its real world value and connection, which defeats teh prupose of trying to affect change.

Although, I do agree with your statement, there have to be some sort of negative outcomes. Some sort of loss to simulate both the real world and also make sure that rules of the game are intact. Nothing harsh, just a boundary that people should not be able to cross.

This defeats the purpose of the simulation because you're practically guaranteeing that the simulation will eventually go to some peak goodness. WIth no obstacles that could ever lead to mass suffering. hunger, or inequality, you don't really incorporate any real value or lesson to this simulation. Most of the time, we don't want to CAUSE bad things to happen to other people, but if you build a textile industry, you're going to cause a negative EFFECT on others. How can we apply anything that we learn in this simulation to the real world if you take out the grey area of things or the rippling effects?

An analogy to this suggestion would be if life and goals were a race, and the "real world" and this "simulation world" were lanes on the racetrack. Running on the "real world" lane involved hurdles, pole vaulting, and swimming where you can easily fall behind, get injured, or not complete the race because of poor judgement or coordination, while running on the "simulation world" track is a flat, grassy lane with an optional golf-cart. There's just no real value this way...

Since the game is meant to provide an alternative to our reality, it should be realistic. If we look to Thomas Moore's Utopia, which is part of the influence for this project, even in Utopia, good and evil still exists. Crime and war, which are negative outcomes, still exist in Moore's Utopia because it would be unrealistic to simply claim only good exists. What Moore does in his Utopia is explain how Utopia addresses these issues - he in no way assumes they somehow by magic do not exist.

Likewise in this game, negative outcomes are part of reality. The question is, how will the game world minimize the likelihood of negative outcomes? If this game is meant to propose an alternative reality and act as a simulation, then it hopefully should be making improvements upon our own unfair system, and hopefully the negative outcomes are at least diminishing. The game world should not attempt to hide these faults, but if the design of this world is successful, the positive outcomes should be more prevalent than the negative ones. Just as a scientist does not alter an experiment to prove a certain result, we should observe what happens in the game world without interference, and thus both positive and negative outcomes should be permitted.

As I mentioned on the realistic aspect of the game, I believe that the game should be as realistic as possible. Since I feel this way, I also believe that there should be both negative and positive outcomes. The game should be equivalent to real life. There are always positive and negative consequences for people's actions and choices. If the game aims to be effective and influential then it should allow for the player to overcome obstacles as they would in real life.

I agree to a certain extent. It is good to have a healthy dose of realism in the game so as not to overwhelm the players via paradigm shift, but it is also good to separate from reality. There is an escape from reality within the game world. As Huizinga states, games should have the quality of being separate from everyday reality. In games, we have the opportunity to explore more than we would in real life, and this is a main reason why so many people play games. If the game had consequences similar to consequences in real life, what would be the point? The game should allow for mistakes to be undone. If your player were to step off a cliff and die within the first 5 minutes of playing, wouldn't you want a chance to change that negative outcome?

I completely agree, I think many gamers can relate to the impact and value of long-term consequences. If you play a game that has save states, at one point or another, you'll probably want to do something bad, or cheat, or kill, or pick a choice that you wouldn't realistically pick because you know that no matter what absurd or terrible thing(s) you do in that game, you can always reload to your previous point and all those looming consequences would have never happened. If you play a multi-player game that is either live or irreversible with outside consequence, you probably will act and behave according to some norms from fear of getting banned or being restricted from participating in an activity.

I voted that the game should include both positive and negative outcomes. Why? To put it simply, people don't always make the right decisions in the real world. Correct me if I'm wrong, but players would probably generate the same situation in the game's virtual world as well. Bad decisions usually lead to its negative repercussions(An eye for an eye), while good decisions may produce fortunate circumstances. The game must include both negative and positive outcomes to demonstrate this realistic interrelatedness between various social decisions. Also, this game aims to explore tangible socio-political methods of alleviating global violence and inequality in a virtual world. How would players abide by such an objective if they don't even know which of their critical decisions are harming, or helping the virtual livelihood of others? Having both positive and negative outcomes would solve this dilemma. Plus, everyday life relies on conflict, and the conflict element is what makes the game an accurate, and more importantly, engaging simulation of reality.

Eric Yoo
COCU177: Critical Computer Game Studies
WI12; Ayhan Aytes

To adhere to the idea of a simulation, even in the presence of the arbitrary starting rules such as in the inception conditions of this game, the availability of both positive outcomes and negative outcomes will allow for a more engaging type of game play. In addition to that, I believe that the non-deterministic nature of the availability of both will incentivize play much more than simply watching something come to a conclusion that was previously foreseen. The lessons learned from negative outcomes will come only after catastrophic halt in play, and if the only outcome were to be happiness and rainbows, it wouldn't give any player incentive to continue playing in spite of gaining any form of experience.

Reality comes with positive and negative consequences, so the game should have them as well. Having high consequence situations will make the game challenging and more realistic; if a game only had one consequence it could potentially be reviewed as too predictable and thus less enjoyable. Rewarding players allows them to position themselves in society against others as well as measuring themselves against their own expectations. Negative outcomes insist that for every matter there is a 'good' and a 'bad' way and adds another dimension to decision-making

I think that the game should allow both positive and negative outcomes, as claimed in previous comments. This way the game is more realistic and can efficiently demonstrate the consequences of our decisions in the game, whether they are good or bad. This reflects reality in that there is not always a "happy ending" in the "real-world," as other online games portray. With both positive and negative outcomes, players are given the opportunity to backtrack, if they stumble upon a negative outcome, or the opportunity to see their good work.

As mentioned in the previous comments, positive AND negative outcomes are the best--and most realistic--way toward progress. Both outcomes facilitate the learning of what works and what doesn't work. If gameplay only featured all positive or all negative outcomes, then there would be no advancement of the game. There would be no growth in the players. Everything would just be, period. While negative outcomes don't sound appetizing to anyone, the fact of the matter is that humans have made progress because of encounters with failure. Positive and negative outcomes allow the human spirit to develop its ideals, morals and values. Including both outcomes into the game would reveal how the world of the game is not perfect, but gives players the opportunity to figure out how best to make it so.

Asia Camagong
Undergraduate Student
University of California, San Diego
COCU177: Critical Computer Game Studies

Both negative and positive outcomes are relevant to playing this game. I believe both are necessary because it is more reasonable to be susceptible to any kind of consequences. Otherwise, there are no incentives besides instant gratification or conversely constant rejection. Without the balance of both outcomes, players don't have any room to progress in the game. It only seems practical that members gauge their own standards by learning from examples of errors and triumphs.
In fact, The Manifesto claims that "Human nature varies over time and among and within political communities, and is largely a result of whatever the laws at a particular point in time dictate." If we were to limit such human nature to merely positive or merely negative outcomes, there would be no change and consequently no movement toward progress.
We as different individuals are to bring to the table our own perspectives, values, opinions and thoughts because AgoraXchange is a public forum in which we have access to the discussion and deliberation of ideas. Granted the game is to recruit members to become active participants/voters, it seems more realistic that we are also subject to every kind of feedback.

I think the game should have both positive and negative outcomes. This way, it would reflect the kind of balance that already exists in the real world. This website is not trying to build a utopia, and based on the attempts that have been tried in the past in reality, they have never ended well, so to only have positive outcomes would not be the most beneficial either. Negative outcomes can allow people to learn from mistakes and get better at continuing to grow as a community.

i think it is integral to the realistic aspects of the game to ensure that it contains both positive and negative outcomes. in life, knowing that everything is going to be either totally positive or totally negative would be boring; this is even more true when applied to games. what is the point in participating in a game when you know from the outset that it's going to end positively or negatively? having everything result in positive outcomes is truly fantastical and has no basis in reality. the point of the game is to create an alternate world that has roots in real aspects of politics; in order to create a world that mirrors plausible outcomes, we can't limit those outcomes to being wholly positive or negative. that would be counterintuitive.

I believe a world without consequences or negative responses is much too fantastical. If this game is to be realistic, it should definitely include both positive and negative outcomes. How is one to learn from mistakes in the game, just as in life, if every move is given positive reinforcement? There would also be a definite loss of challenge if nothing a player did resulted in some sort of loss or punishment. If someone is disturbing the "Utopian" peace, they should be reprimanded. Likewise, if they are doing things for the greater good of the game world then they should be rewarded. In order to picture and experiment with this new world through the game we need to have realistic circumstances, which of course would include negative outcomes to some events.

I think that having both positive and negative outcomes will be an essential factor in creating a realistic Agora Xchange world. While we are working to create a transformed society based on progressive thought and new ways of ruling and living, negative outcomes will play a part in building that. In many situations, negative outcomes have helped communities learn to deal with a crisis, learn from failure, and learn to come together. Of course, in this new world, what is considered positive and negative will be different from what we think today, but will be crucial in building a new and strong foundation. With any society comes the good and the bad, and I believe the Agora Xchange world should be built on realistic expectations.

I completely agree with this point, namely because of the statement that "negative outcomes will play a part in building [new ways of ruling and living]." It seems that, in a way, reality relies on conflict, as is evidenced by the way humans respond. It reveals to them what and where change must be made. If players place themselves in one situation that results in a negative outcome, then they'll cooperate together so that next time the outcome will work more in their favor. By allowing both positive and negative outcomes to coexist, players have a greater chance of building communities, of strengthening their bonds and of learning more about themselves. The two outcomes provide proof that not only can "good" and "bad" coexist, but it can work together to establish the new world system the players can agree upon. While it may create competition, both outcomes do more of a job in the development of cooperation.

Asia Camagong
Undergraduate Student
University of California, San Diego
COCU177: Critical Computer Game Studies

I agree there should be both positive and negative outcomes in order for there to be reinforcements and consequences. The game needs both to be realistic but it is also something to think about in terms of the structure of the game that there should only be positive outcomes according to the decrees and rules it seems that would be the only logical outcome. The game seems structured to elicit positive outcomes naturally so there shouldn't be any negative ones but in the case that someone acts against the structure of the game and does something that doesn't parallel the games goals and ideas than there should be a potential negative consequence built in so as to make sure there is some order to how people act. If there aren't any negative consequences than people will do what they want which leads to chaos and potential danger to others in society.

Having both positive and negative outcomes is essential for realistic game play. The possible outcomes in a virtual world should mirror outcomes that exist in the real world. All actions in the real world have both positive and negative consequences, outcomes, and results. Therefore, to ensure a sense of realism, this game should have both positive and negative outcomes.

I voted for both positive and negative accounts. After reading some of the other replies to this question I would have to agree with several points that were made. First, this world that we are creating has to be somewhat realistic. There has to be positive and negative outcomes. Even in a world we are trying to start from scratch, it would be wrong to think that all our actions would result in positive outcomes. This type of thinking is too unrealistic. In addition to this, by only offering one type of outcome, the game would be fixed, and the game could become predictable, boring and discourage people from playing it. I also agree with the point that was made by Sahand that "all our actions have consequences--good and bad" Indeed, and allowing for both positive and negative outcomes allows us to reflect reality.

It's always nice when you can not only be informed, but also entertained! I'm sure you had fun writing this article. Excellent entry! I'm been looking for topics as interesting as this. Looking forward to your next post.

Thanks a lot for a bunch of good tips. I look forward to reading more on the topic in the future. Keep up the good work! This blog is going to be great resource. Love reading it

I agree.

Thanks for sharing this information i really like it.Keep sending such types of information because it keeps aware you of changes going on and around...Thank Once again

Incredible stuff guys!

That is Really Incredible because these days people prefer games with positive outcomes mostly . though a game with well justified negative outcome also may attract the gamers

I concur and think there should be positive and negative outcomes of the game. Doing so provides a holistic account of our strengths and our weakness and will motivate us to work better when there are flaws that need to be addressed. The game society needs to be created in a way so as to replicate the closest resemblance of a realistic game theory in relation to the cost-benefit analysis of the comparing countries. I think our country will strive to have a better agenda and work harder when we know our flaws as opposed to our strengths.

As in any other game, negative and positive outcomes should be instated. First, because it is more engaging. It's fun for participants, because it provides incentive to perform. Lastly, it is more consistent with the realities of the world: all our actions have consequences--good and bad.

I think by having negative outcomes it will not only make the game realistic but it will allow for an understanding of what can be done to make things more positive within the game society. The negative outcomes will be considered learning lessons. Additionally, things should be allowed to flow without limitations of positive or negative, in this way the game would have a realistic twist.

I voted for both positive and negative outcomes not for the reproduction of real life, but for the purpose of gamesmanship. In real life there is no such thing as a universally good or bad experience, we apply our own perspectives, reasoning, experiences, and ambitions to a given action or occurrence and evaluate it accordingly.

Many say that a mudslide that kills 20,000 people is a horrible disaster. Thousands of people lose their lives, and thousands more would lose their homes, belongings, and sources of income. The economy of the given location may be crushed and devastated for decades to come. On the other hand, Construction companies and medical organizations around the world would call it a god send, as they would surely experience astronomical growth in demand for their services. Thousands would benefit as result, and thus the situation could be constructed as "positive" overall.

The fact is, even when actions are taken by players to hurt or disadvantage another group, which will surely be seen as negative, it will also benefit another group, and be seen as positive. The same works vice versa. Simply banning a "negative" or "positive" outcome is not possible as these terms are not objective, they only gain their value once we assign it to them.

I found your perspective really interesting in terms of not positioning the game with both positive and negative outcomes just to replicate real life (which is not the point of real life), but because there can always be something negative that comes out of something positive and something positive that comes out of a negative event. I thought your example of the mudslide offered a twist to traditional thinking. And I agree that what is deemed positive or negative is subjective for a community and even more so for an individual.

i think it is quite clear that we need to allow for both positive and negative outcomes. what use would a game like this provide us if we fixed what sort of outcomes would come out of it? it is meant to be experimental and aid us in picturing what a world would be like as guided by the decrees. if we only allowed for either positive or negative outcomes it would be either an unrealistic, sickeningly utopian picture or a negative hellish picture that would make us reject the decrees, as it would seem that the decrees lead to this inevitably negative world. obviously we must allow for both positive and negative outcomes!!

if there were only positive or only negative the game would not be realistic. there would be no reason for the game to reflect today's world if you do not account for all of the possibilities that could occur.

i agree with the comment posted by lawsomjr99 in that there must be both positive and negative outcomes in the game because it promotes a more realistic society. in all real societies there are both positive and negative things that result from actions from both the government and the people of the society. having a purely positive based society will lead to a boring a unrealistic game. people playing this game will want risk in a number of the decisions that they must make in order to succeed and/or survive in this society. on the other hand, only having negative outcomes will discourage people from playing because they know that it is inevitable that they will ultimately fail in the society. having both types of outcomes not only reflects reality but it also adds an element of risk to the game and forces the gamers to be responsible for their actions.

To be fair, the McDonalds game only has negative outcomes in the end, but I think its viability lies in the fact that it highlights the amount of effort it takes to keep a large food chain a float. In the same way, this can be applied here since it would show how much effort is required to keep a large state in place without it ultimately failing. Perhaps it could be used to light a fire under some players into making decisions akin to some politicians today (eg. the pressures from lobbyists and other organizations).

I think that the game should be realistic. In our society positive and negative outcomes are possible so I think the game should have both,too. The game should test negative outcomes to see how the players and those in office handle the difficulties. Maybe from this we can see and discover new ideas for dealing with crises. Positive outcomes should also be included so we can see how those in the game deal with success in addition to failure.