next »

[Gimym TILBERT]

to me, minecraft has goals, it's just looser about which goals to pursue than some other games are. for instance, gradually crafting, improving your tools, improving your materials, remaking the world to be more to your liking, that's very goal-oriented, even if it does its goal-orientation a slightly different way than other games do.

think about how much work and effort someone had to go through to build all those giant models you see in minecraft videos (like the star trek enterprise or whatever) -- that's a very goal-oriented thing to do. it takes a lot of planning and work. it's not just playful leisure.

Therefore what's not goal base? Human are at least drive by survival!
You kill your argument about "not game"

[Gabriel Verdon]

to me, minecraft has goals, it's just looser about which goals to pursue than some other games are. for instance, gradually crafting, improving your tools, improving your materials, remaking the world to be more to your liking, that's very goal-oriented, even if it does its goal-orientation a slightly different way than other games do.

think about how much work and effort someone had to go through to build all those giant models you see in minecraft videos (like the star trek enterprise or whatever) -- that's a very goal-oriented thing to do. it takes a lot of planning and work. it's not just playful leisure.

Knytt Stories would like a word with you

Also, if all you want to do is enjoy some ambience, why don't you go take a walk in a forest or something? Go travel somewhere exotic. If I'm playing a game I want it to either feel: 1. challenging/rewarding, 2. mind-expanding. There are plenty of opportunities for nice ambience to wrapped around either of those.

If all you want to do is wander around and smell the flowers, that's what outside is for

[14113]

to me, minecraft has goals, it's just looser about which goals to pursue than some other games are. for instance, gradually crafting, improving your tools, improving your materials, remaking the world to be more to your liking, that's very goal-oriented, even if it does its goal-orientation a slightly different way than other games do.

think about how much work and effort someone had to go through to build all those giant models you see in minecraft videos (like the star trek enterprise or whatever) -- that's a very goal-oriented thing to do. it takes a lot of planning and work. it's not just playful leisure.

As yahtzee put it:

A giant gold penis.

[Paul Eres]

@neoshaman: could you reword that? i don't understand what you said. if you're going to reply to my posts try to reply in a way i can understand what you mean, haha

@gabriel: what? are you seriously saying knytt stories doesn't have goals? the game where you collect powers and after you've collected them all and saved knytt you've beaten the game? i don't think you really know what goalless games are.

i also never said that goalless games can't be popular, if that's what you're implying. there are many popular ones, for instance, mario paint. but the examples given of popular goalless games in this thread (minecraft, knytt stories) are all strongly goal-oriented games. there's a difference between a game being goalless and a game that doesn't tell you what your goals are immediately and leaves you to discover your goals, or to choose your goals from among a set of possible goals.

[Gabriel Verdon]

@neoshaman: could you reword that? i don't understand what you said. if you're going to reply to my posts try to reply in a way i can understand what you mean, haha

@gabriel: what? are you seriously saying knytt stories doesn't have goals? the game where you collect powers and after you've collected them all and saved knytt you've beaten the game? i don't think you really know what goalless games are.

i also never said that goalless games can't be popular, if that's what you're implying. there are many popular ones, for instance, mario paint. but the examples given of popular goalless games in this thread (minecraft, knytt stories) are all strongly goal-oriented games. there's a difference between a game being goalless and a game that doesn't tell you what your goals are immediately and leaves you to discover your goals, or to choose your goals from among a set of possible goals.

Ok, if you consider those goal-oriented games, give me some examples of goalless ones. I will play them and tell you how valuable the experience was for me.

[Gimym TILBERT]

@paul
Regarding your answer about minecraft (remaking the world to your liking) I don't understand what you mean by goalless. It's even more confusing that your example, mario paint, is close to minecraft. There is many goal: draw something, make music, etc...

 

[Paul Eres]

@neoshaman & @gabriel

the main differences between mario paint and minecraft are

- minecraft has a predefined set of goals, even though it can also be used creatively, whereas mario paint has no predefined set of goals, even though of course it's true that the player can create their own goals in either game, it's just that in addition to the player-created goals, minecraft also has some goals which are already inherent in it

- you can die in minecraft, you can't die in mario paint; avoiding death (survival) is one of the major goals of minecraft, whereas no monster will eat your drawing in mario paint if you don't draw it right

- minecraft has a 'tech tree' and 'ladder of materials' that you gradually climb in order to access better and more powerful tools, mario paint gives you access to all the tools at the start, and doesn't require that you have to 'unlock' them

as for other examples of popular games besides mario paint which aren't goal-oriented, there's also falling sand game: http://fallingsandgame.com/sand/ and similar games like this one: http://dan-ball.jp/en/javagame/dust/ -- and some of the early 'sim-' games, like sim-earth and the original sim-city (although some of the latter sim-city games have goals). and games like endless forest. all of those are at least moderately popular.

[Gimym TILBERT]

Okay that's fine, I just call that kind of "goals" differently.
A goal is what "pull" you, the example you give "push" you (survival). The enterprise example was when minecraft was not yet goal oriented (or disable in this particular play), and is similar to mario paint and failing sand. The Craft tree is akin to exploring a "space", it's more exploration (being pull by newness and empowerment) so it's not the kind of goal, you could say that exploration of "space" is what mario paint and failing sand are about, going through the possibility.

Not trying to start a semantic battle, just a clarification to highlight some subtleties from my own perspective. From your perspective it's totally fine too.

[Paul Eres]

yes in its early versions minecraft didn't have goals; i actually liked the very early versions of minecraft better than the current version (i liked when there were no monsters, when all you did was place blocks and run around with friends digging tunnels under the ocean)

and yes, i understand that distinction but i use goal for both "push" and "pull"

for instance, take real life:

if someone wants money to buy a nice house with a swimming pool: a "pull" goal
if someone wants money not to starve: a "push" goal

i feel that "push" goals are stronger: if you don't do this, you suffer punishment. "pull" goals aren't as strong to people as "push" goals are. saving the princess isn't as strong to a player as avoiding being hit by a goomba and dying or avoiding falling into a hole and dying. so that's another way in which games reflect real life, in games the "push" goals are dominant over the "pull" goals.

(except in casual games or games with achievements, where dying is rare)

perhaps we could say that hardcore games are games with dominant "push" goals and casual games are games with dominant "pull" goals

[thatshelby]

I will now be level five, to demonstrate, as I have 500 posts.

Also, I will use this smiley any chance I get: 

[Gabriel Verdon]

Holy shit, I totally forgot about Dust. I stand corrected sir, I absolutely love that game.

However, I think it's important to distinguish between games and toys. If something doesn't have a goal, I don't think it can honestly be classified as a game anymore, despite the fact that it's interactive and on a screen. Like, I would consider dust to be a toy - a very fascinating and compelling one nonetheless. It's actually one of the major inspirations for my current project.

I like your points about push and pull goals though.

[Paul Eres]

i've no problem calling them toys, but consider that it's only in videogames that we make that distinction. when kids say 'let's play cowboys and indians' -- they call them games, not toys. to me, games are things with rules. toys don't really have "rules" -- games do. and dust and mario paint and the sims have "rules" even if they don't have goals. so i feel that that separation is really 3 separations:

- things with no rules and no goals (like legos, and g.i. joe action figures, and barbies)
- things with rules, but no goals (games like cowboys and indians and simcity and dust)
- things with rules and goals (like mario and halo and sonic)

[Gabriel Verdon]

i've no problem calling them toys, but consider that it's only in videogames that we make that distinction. when kids say 'let's play cowboys and indians' -- they call them games, not toys. to me, games are things with rules. toys don't really have "rules" -- games do. and dust and mario paint and the sims have "rules" even if they don't have goals. so i feel that that separation is really 3 separations:

- things with no rules and no goals (like legos, and g.i. joe action figures, and barbies)
- things with rules, but no goals (games like cowboys and indians and simcity and dust)
- things with rules and goals (like mario and halo and sonic)

That's interesting. Although I think Lego does have rules - each piece has a limited number of ways it can be combined with other pieces, based on it's nubs/slots. You could always melt them or tape them together or whatever but then it's not really Lego anymore.

[Paul Eres]

ah, that's a good point. i'd put legos in the middle category then

other examples of the middle category might include musical instruments, because those don't have goals but also have rules (to an extent -- harmony, chords, keys, etc.)

[Blademasterbobo]

It sure is fun making pointless definitions.

It's even more fun making a point and then revealing that your definitions mean the point was actually a tautology.

A perfect Paul Eres Semantics Trap. The thrill is breathtaking.