next »

[hmm]

Hi everybody,

So, if you're into this kind of thing you may have come across some of these definitions of game before:
"A game is a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome." (Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman)
"A game is a form of art in which participants, termed players, make decisions in order to manage resources through game tokens in the pursuit of a goal." (Greg Costikyan)

Key things being rules, goals, player etc.

Some of you may find these kinds of definitions prescriptive/restrictive, but I find it useful to define things somewhat clearly if you're going to discuss it in any depth.

One question that arises when you adopt these definitions is 'how does something like minecraft/sim city' fit in. There are no (explicit) goals! LiES!

So, my theory on this is that these kinds of software are more appropriately described as simulations, which provide a platform for people to make up their own games. So Minecraft itself isn't a game, but "build a massive hole without being killed" is a game. Really, all the player is doing is making up their own goal, the rules are kind of implicit in the simulation itself.

And this applies to real life too. Sports are games that people have made up that take advantage of the laws of physics. In football (soccer) there's the rules and goals people made up, and the rules implicit in the laws of physics (e.g. ball cannot teleport into a goal instantaneously).

How about this as an approach to design? I mean, it obviously kind of exists already with all these survival simulators, Gary's Mod etc. But also, it can explain the way Immersive Sim genre kind of works - make a simulated world. Then add goals. GAME!

Rant over. Any thoughts on this?  Perhaps a drive to make interesting simulations/systems that can support a variety of games? Maybe a way for AAA to have the variety of gameplay they want in their titles without having to program a bunch of separate systems?

[hmm]

Also, just realised that game engines are kind of like this too. So there's a spectrum from game engine through to a simulation - all contain systems that can games can be built within. Things like AI or physics systems.

[s0]

this is actually a really old approach to design. flight sims, space trading sims, many open world rpgs (elder scrolls!) and to an extent roguelikes all work this way.

also most sandbox type games already have implicit goals (sim city: build a big prosperous city, crusader kings 2: expand your empire and dynasty, flight simulators: fly to places without crashing). theres also a "fail state" in all of these games. the difference is that you're not locked into these goals but are free to pursue other goals.

[JWK5]

Just about any child with toys has made games within a simulation. If you think about it, that is all sandbox games are: a sandbox full of toys. A good sandbox game gives you a bunch of fun toys. In a sandbox you can shape and build and otherwise make your toys interact with the environment, the same seems to be true of the funner sandbox games I've played.