next »

[gimymblert]

ALL games (let assume for the moment) only have one goal: WINNING. And each of "fake goal" can be evaluate against that ultimate goal. Winning also have a "shadow goal" >TO NOT FAIL, as long failure is prevented winning is possible.

Think about it, even a game like mario 64 does not provide multiple goal and non linearity, star are just a resource to get closer to "completion" and just like old SMB you cannot "go back". The difference is that the progression is abstract (number of star) rather than "physical" level length. Star are the MEAN to advance rather than MOVING to the goal Like in SMB.

Compare to game like the sims, animal crossing, harvest moon, Princess maker 2, elite, sim city. Those game have no PRESSURE, there is no winning and no fail (but still punishment and reward). If you do nothing you end up in the worst "game state", and the best "game state" is still harder to achieve AND maintain. And sometimes you have multiple game state to balance sometimes mutually exclusives, sometime not.

If you think about it, these game provide you not with objectives (goals) But "subjects" you answer by creating goals:

In princess maker the subject is RAISE A GIRL, whatever you do you raise your girl, even if you do nothing actually. There is 72 endings (career the girl get) that depend on how you raise her (from lazy housewives, to princess of darkness or dancer). The game provide you with tools to create your definition of raising a girl and let you observe consequence. Going for a warrior some tools became obstacles (ex that job pay well but raise too much sensibilities) while going for a dancer these same tools became relevant and those you were using for warrior became obstacles (you still need them), if you shoot for a dancer and end up with a warrior you fail, but only on your own perception. Choosing a goal and balancing element to achieve it and answering the "subject" these game are about freedom. The player judge his own progression with his own value. These game function with organic PUSH and PULL rather than simple objectives.

You cannot have a freedom with a goal from the game, you always have to go for it, whatever the mean and this is the judgement the game pass on you, imposing value, the stake of the "play".

We can always argue that "OBJECTive base" are somewhat SUBJECT base game (ninja gaiden is not about saving the world but being a ninja?) But it's obvious that by design one take precedence and shape the experience. Subject base game are somewhat TRUE open ended sandbox game. A game like GTA offer you to "BE a criminal" but look more like a series of OBJECT base game with a glorified selection menu, morrorwind and the kind as well. They all feature QUEST and completion progression with optimal path, and aside from resources circulation, each of these "mini quest" does not interact with each other, they do not share the same design space. These game feature a main quest to maintain interest over these sidequest, an overall goal to give the player some direction, whether to pursue or to avoid.

On contrary SUBJECT base maintain freedom by trading "quest" with "tools" to create and maintain a "state" that is the player's answer to the game subject. The game answer the player's states (and states change) by events rather than triggered scenes according to a set progression, always keeping things fresh and dynamics. These game are truly about BEING, taking a role or to express oneself. But DESIGNING a subject is a lot harder, as we do not have much gameplay tropes and words to qualify its mechanisms.

Do you think this reflexion hold some water? Do you see holes to address, or hope to attain?  What can we learn from shifting our perception of gameplay towards subjects and can we builds the understanding to formalize this towards easier subject design?

Give your opinions/rants/hopes/thoughts, etc...

[FatHat]

Lots to unpack there... some interesting thoughts though.

"Subject based" seems to capture an important element that is rarely considered, which is that these games are more about playing a role/lifestyle. It's like the adult version of kids playing "House" or "Doctor" or "Cowboys and Indians" -- none of the kids are winners (though there can certainly be losers), it's just play.

The fundamental aspect of play in those games is finding a suitable role and acting it out. If you try to play a role that isn't context appropriate the other kids will kick you out. I'm finding it hard to codify what the exact appeal of this sort of game is (self expression?), but it seems to strike at something deep in the core of most people, which is why something like The Sims sells about a trillion copies while we all sit on the sidelines thinking "how did a game about watching someone else watch TV sell to anyone?"

[William Broom]

It's an interesting point you make. What I would add to it is that it's not really a binary switch between 'Subjective' and 'Objective'. Rather, it's a whole spectrum. At one end, you have something like Tetris, where there is only the objective. Further along, you might find something like Assassin's Creed, which is about completing the objectives, but it's also about 'being' an assassin, since you have a choice between, say, attacking the enemies head-on, killing them stealthily, or avoiding them altogether.

Likewise, games like Harvest Moon still incorporate some degree of objective-based gameplay, since you have to complete certain tasks to make your farm work well. Whereas Phun or Noby Noby Boy would be even further toward the 'subjective' end of the spectrum, since they don't really give you an objectives at all.

[Parthon]

The only problem I forsee with this is that games have goals for a reason: because without goals they would be boring.

Even if you take a sim-game like Sim City or Dwarf Fortress, there's still the under-goal of 'not failing' in the background. Whatever goal the player creates and lays on top of the simulation has to exist inside of that goal, or specifically outside it in certain examples, like killing people in The Sims.

Those few 'games' that have no win condition and no failure condition end up being toys instead of games. Certainly the player can also lay a goal condition on what they are trying to do with the toy, but there's no satisfaction in 'breating' the toy because there's nothing to beat. It's not to say it's not fun, just it's a different kind of fun.

So what's the purpose of all this? Do we make more games that have specific goals in order to give the player something to challenge themselves against? Do we make more games with loose goals but failure conditions, encouraging the player to create their own goals? Or do we make more toys, that have no failures or goals aside from what the player themselves create?

I say that each one has it's purpose depending on what the game wants to be. All three are fun in different ways and the variety of games would be weaker without any one of them.

As a side note: Crayon Physics Deluxe could have just been a toy, but it was infinitely better with a goal.

[SirNiko]

Goals define an explicit end-point for play. For me, that means I can play through a game, exhaust the content (by reaching the end-goal, be that to get a megalopolis or to collect 120 stars), and then I can shelve the title and move on to a new game.

Some people might feel that a game that goes on forever is the best value, but I disagree. I like games that present a series of rising challenges, then caps that challenge at some realistic point and lets you go on to something new.

I especially like it when playing a game like an RPG where I can then restart on a new save file at a later date, and see how the game plays out now that I know the system and understand what I'm doing right from the start (And be frustrated with the copious quantities of cut scenes, but that's another story).

-SirNiko

[Sam]

I think toy games are great.  I also think they deserve separate categorisation from sandbox games.  Toys are further along the sandbox spectrum than most games which are given that label.  A toy is (almost?) completely devoid of designed goals, and instead presents something for the player to interact with on their own terms.

I think there are two key requirements for a good toy game.  Firstly it should offer a wide possibility space for the player's actions, and cope gracefully with however the player interacts with that space.  GTA3 does this well, mostly thanks to some very nifty physics and AI.  The game is set up to expect high speed police chases along roads, but if I run off into a warehouse complex the AI copes with that and produces an interesting combat situation.  The cars that were chasing pull up outside and the officers find their way up to me, taking cover behind suitable objects (including the wrecked car I left outside) and engaging in firefight behaviour.  This is fun times.  If this were a scripted event then the animations would be a little neater, and the warehouse would be better laid out for gunfights, but it wouldn't feel anywhere near as real; even if technically it looked more realistic.

The second requirement - often overlooked by sandbox games - is that it should spark off the creation of game goals within the player themselves.  Consider SimCity, or Dwarf Fortress (see how it rears over the sandbox, glistening with terrifying beauty) and their ability to keep a player interested without ever having to tell them what to do next.  Consider World of Warcraft, and its obsessive need to tell you how many more cursed owl giblets you need to collect, where to find the cursed owls, and where to deposit the stinking mass to get your reward.  Warcraft needs to tell you what to do all the time because a player getting lost and wandering off will tend to get bored.  A player effectively does nothing but wander in a toy game; the difference is that they will find things about the world that interests, excites and encourages play.

I believe the key to toy games is understanding what about a particular game will make it spark the creation of goals by the player.  I think the themes of ownership and deep (longlasting/significant) interaction will turn out to be important.

On the subject of goals as valuable end-points, I think it depends on how one approaches the game as a source of entertainment.  The idea of a game that goes on forever is not at all appealing to me, but a game that goes on for just as long as I'm entertained by it sounds good.  The danger with end goals is that a player may find themselves slogging through a part of the game that they don't like just so that they can get to the end.  I stumbled on some blog entry recently which said their new year's resolution was to finish up playing a bunch of games, like it was cleaning the bathroom.  That isn't the relationship with games I am looking for.

I will not write about connections between dominating attitudes towards games (desiring to beat and then discard,) gender politics, and the male bias in video game production and consumption.  Because that would be silly.

[shrimp]

Nice ideas here! Toys are indeed awesome. The ridiculous thought of "beating" a toy made me laugh...

A few games to add to your "subject-based" list of examples maybe:
- Elite, and maybe more so Frontier (Elite 2) - combines exploration and trading, and setting your own goals
- Those "grow" games - www.eyezmaze.com - same as your Princess Maker example really

Do all sandbox games qualify? Are there subject-based games that aren't sandboxes or toys? Maybe something like Tale of Tales stuff? (which I don't personally like, but thats just me)

BTW careful with "subjective" vs "objective" as terms. The noun "Objective" may mean "goal", the adjective means something else, likewise "subjective". I guess it's pretty clear in context but it could lead to misunderstanding. I almost suggested "subject-oriented" and then realised that "object-oriented" is already taken...

I have been thinking of this sort of stuff for my exploration-game-that-I-hardly-get-chance-to-work-on (see sig link, if you want)

I've been thinking how to get the exploration, discovery and "situatedness" (need a better word) with some kind of lasting appeal but without adding a goal. Something like trading (thinking of Frontier) would draw people around the world but I'm worried that it would lead some players to miss the point and just go for making lots of money (at the development cost of implementing a reasonable economy).

Once the environment is reasonably compelling, with features to discover, critters, weather, and maybe with some Knytt-style ambient musical fragments it's probably time to test it and maybe release an iteration. Depending how that works out maybe I'll add some "grow" mechanic, like taking an X to village Y causes them to build a Z.

@Salt: I like your restraint

[gimymblert]

Thank you all for replying all

BTW careful with "subjective" vs "objective" as terms. The noun "Objective" may mean "goal", the adjective means something else, likewise "subjective". I guess it's pretty clear in context but it could lead to misunderstanding. I almost suggested "subject-oriented" and then realised that "object-oriented" is already taken...

Sure i'm not happy with the term i have come with (that's why i use cap to differentiate them) if someone have better one to suggest?

What I would add to it is that it's not really a binary switch between 'Subjective' and 'Objective'. Rather, it's a whole spectrum. At one end, you have something like Tetris, where there is only the objective. Further along, you might find something like Assassin's Creed, which is about completing the objectives, but it's also about 'being' an assassin, since you have a choice between, say, attacking the enemies head-on, killing them stealthily, or avoiding them altogether

That's interesting.
I agree there different side of a spectrum, it start with toy (no goal, no solution,), puzzle (have one goal and many solution) and perhaps SUBJECT game (many goals many solution).

Do all sandbox games qualify? Are there subject-based games that aren't sandboxes or toys? Maybe something like Tale of Tales stuff? (which I don't personally like, but thats just me)

Sandbox is not a clear category for pragmatique use in that case, SUBJECT game would tend to be sandbox, but most sandbox game falls into the OBJECT category (see original post). Sandbox seems to suggest more a non linear framework from a formal point of view, they encourage exploration.

By the way what i'm trying to find is simply a framework to analyze how element relate to each other more clearly, something that could help us indentifying function and finding solution, especially when it come to overall structure design. It also mean that we can intricate OBJECT and SUBJECT aspects with better subtlety if we do understand how they relate with each other and what differentiate them.

The problem is more about the way games give players "directions". In what i called OBJECT game (before reworking on better naming), there is always a clear value scale and one direction. The "goal" is to progress towards "completion", even if the goal is unreachable. Any sub goals are just steps in that progression. The main VERB of those game emphasis that. Contrasting, SUBJECT game provide you with VERB with less clear direction and have less emphasis on progression, but still provide you enough hook to keep you playing. How that hook works is what i try to understand.

Goals define an explicit end-point for play. For me, that means I can play through a game, exhaust the content (by reaching the end-goal, be that to get a megalopolis or to collect 120 stars), and then I can shelve the title and move on to a new game.

Let's look at some of those OBJECT game:

• In super mario bros nes, the direction and the progression is clear. Reach the end of the level, each complete level is a step toward the goal, you can't even scroll back in a level!
  
  
• In mario 64 the overall progression is measure with stars, like mario there is no turning bck, once you have a star you have it and you are closer to the goal. Except this time the progression is more abstract, the value scale is not a simple physical distance, you have a layer of abstraction with stars.
  
  
• In a game like morrorwind completion can be measure in term of quest complete, once all the quest are complete the game is complete. The game also provide a "main quest" for a lower "goal" to achieve, to give the player an illusion of closure. But once all quest are done there isn't much to do. It's fake sandbox game, structurally quest are like stars in mario 64 except less clearly shown.
  
  
• In a game like tetris, the progression is still clear (number of line) and has one direction (more lines!), but the goal is set at infinite, you cannot reach it.
  
  
• Pacman and the famous level n°256 is a famous limit case of game with infinite placed goal, the game have a reachable "end" that is the limit of the program.
  
  
• Pet game have a reachable goal and a clear direction but no end (not always) except for failure. Generally it is to KEEP the pet healthy. When there is an end, it's bound to player but to a time counter. Progression is still clear along a value scale (healthy and time) but we are in an edge case, it start to look like SUBJECT game.
  
  

Using that progression framework it's easy to analyse game structure, that's what we do every time when we discuss things like lock and key or gating, etc... It makes things pretty clear to organize and to plot structure.

However what i call SUBJECT game are a little bit different. Progression is stunt in some way, they still have it, kinda, but it's not that simple. Progress are not always permanent and not global.

Likewise, games like Harvest Moon still incorporate some degree of objective-based gameplay, since you have to complete certain tasks to make your farm work well. Whereas Phun or Noby Noby Boy would be even further toward the 'subjective' end of the spectrum, since they don't really give you an objectives at all.

I think you make tangentially a point here! They provide TASKS rather than GOALS. Tasks does not work like goals. You define goals to carry on the task. While task can be turn into (mini) games (or busy work on the boring scale), they are not end point by themselves and generally don't make you progress on any value scale toward a goal, at least i think.

"Subject based" seems to capture an important element that is rarely considered, which is that these games are more about playing a role/lifestyle. It's like the adult version of kids playing "House" or "Doctor" or "Cowboys and Indians" -- none of the kids are winners (though there can certainly be losers), it's just play.

The fundamental aspect of play in those games is finding a suitable role and acting it out. If you try to play a role that isn't context appropriate the other kids will kick you out. I'm finding it hard to codify what the exact appeal of this sort of game is (self expression?), but it seems to strike at something deep in the core of most people, which is why something like The Sims sells about a trillion copies while we all sit on the sidelines thinking "how did a game about watching someone else watch TV sell to anyone?"

Like you suggest i think "SUBJECT verb" does not suggest action but role. Manage a town (sim city), live ordinary lifes (the sims), Raise a girl (princess maker 2). Contrast with Find the key, beat the dragon, get the treasure... Subject verb seems to suggest not "a progression to clear" but a "state (of being?) to maintain" (see the case of tamagotchi earlier), but i'm not satisfy with that explanation it seems to miss some aspect. Anyone have a better explanation here?

The second requirement - often overlooked by sandbox games - is that it should spark off the creation of game goals within the player themselves.  Consider SimCity, or Dwarf Fortress (see how it rears over the sandbox, glistening with terrifying beauty) and their ability to keep a player interested without ever having to tell them what to do next.  Consider World of Warcraft, and its obsessive need to tell you how many more cursed owl giblets you need to collect, where to find the cursed owls, and where to deposit the stinking mass to get your reward.  Warcraft needs to tell you what to do all the time because a player getting lost and wandering off will tend to get bored.  A player effectively does nothing but wander in a toy game; the difference is that they will find things about the world that interests, excites and encourages play.

That's the hard part actually, which mecanism replace the progression/challenge model in SUBJECT game?

However a goal in an OBJECT game is really a single "task" (save the world, beat the white dragon). A SUBJECT game give you many task to carry on that serve their main subject (save the world: fight dragon, save village from thief hordes, protect castle from demon, etc...) but these task renew themselves, there is no "progress". The trick is to understand how task are tied together.  

My intuition hint towards an economics between task, task generate ressource that are consume by other task, and these resources change how well a certain task can be carry on. SUBJECT game seems to rely more on management mechanics. But's that's just an idea i didn't dig it enough yet. The feedback and the interest came from "maintaining" a good state against entropy and chaos, resource play the role of "value scale" except they go up and down without end state. In most SUBJECT game you do not "play" the task, you just choose them and observe a result. And the more resource the more agency and freedom the player experience.

A few games to add to your "subject-based" list of examples maybe:
- Elite, and maybe more so Frontier (Elite 2) - combines exploration and trading, and setting your own goals
- Those "grow" games - www.eyezmaze.com - same as your Princess Maker example really

Grow game are for me puzzle game (only one solution), very unlike Princess maker (no solution, only choice)! Did you play PriMa?

I did mention elite
However trying to analyse it from the new idea discuss earlier i find it an edge case. The game is about being ELITE. There is clear goal and a clear progression (climb the elite ladder), the game also end when you reach the elite state (i think). BUT to progress in that we play a "space trading" game, which look like more a SUBJECT like structure. It's a good exemple of intricate OBJECT and SUBJECT structure on different level!

With all your obervation i think i can see things a little bit more clear now  

 

[FatHat]

Like you suggest i think "SUBJECT verb" does not suggest action but role. Manage a town (sim city), live ordinary lifes (the sims), Raise a girl (princess maker 2). Contrast with Find the key, beat the dragon, get the treasure... Subject verb seems to suggest not "a progression to clear" but a "state (of being?) to maintain" (see the case of tamagotchi earlier), but i'm not satisfy with that explanation it seems to miss some aspect. Anyone have a better explanation here?

It is interesting that subject-games seem to be about maintenance and growth.

One thing to consider, I think, is that those activities are rewarding because there's a sense of creation involved. I don't care about anyone else's Tamagotchi, but the survival of my own Tamagotchi is paramount. Or on a different level, my World of Warcraft character is significant because that character is a creation by myself, so maintaining it is important to me. If I lose my creations, I feel as if I've lost a part of me.

Also a tangent: I used to know a girl that played The Sims primarily for interior decorating purposes. It allowed her to simulate her ideal life in a tangible way. I wonder how much of the appeal comes from that -- from being able to create an idealized reality for our simulated selves.

[gimymblert]

Also a tangent: I used to know a girl that played The Sims primarily for interior decorating purposes. It allowed her to simulate her ideal life in a tangible way. I wonder how much of the appeal comes from that -- from being able to create an idealized reality for our simulated selves.

It's a recurring observation people make about that game, and i always thought: "why they pick the same instead of an actual deco soft"... Now i make the hypothesis that because they still have to maintain and work to "earn" the power to decorate (even if they use cheat code) but it's a speculation, could be simple mimicry like in dolls house (deco soft don't have living characters that live in your "master piece").

[shrimp]

How about GOAL and ROLE?

Also, it's probably already been said but I guess one can often play GOAL/OBJECT games in the style of ROLE/SUBJECT - this is why I feel Frontier is important. You *could* just singlemindedly go for money and ranking, but I usually just went exploring. Thinking of some other games (e.g. Elder Scrolls) it seems that although this should be possible in a game (maybe it's non-linear, has an interesting environment) sometimes the OBJECT is too dominant and stops it being experienced in that way.

I haven't played Princess Maker, but I see what you mean about the Grow games... the end states are ranking and the implied goal is to find the maximum-rated one.

I'm starting to feel a bit lost to be honest, too much stuff to keep track of! Maybe you could add a few lists (OBJECT, SUBJECT, edge cases) to the first post? Arguably its wrong to pigeonhole stuff but it might help focus. Up to you

[SirNiko]

Sandbox games all remind me of the episode of Twilight Zone where the man dies and goes to 'heaven', gets everything (and everyone) he wants when he wants it, and then realizes he's in hell.

I'm not sure what that says for people who would enjoy getting everything they want when they want it.

-SirNiko

[gimymblert]

How about GOAL and ROLE?

I'm starting to feel a bit lost to be honest, too much stuff to keep track of! Maybe you could add a few lists (OBJECT, SUBJECT, edge cases) to the first post? Arguably its wrong to pigeonhole stuff but it might help focus. Up to you

Why not

But looking at the last post we all made it's not game per see but structure. Goal and role structure for game. I entirely destroy my definition of game, but Toy, sandbox, goal and role are all structure we can mesh together in a single product.

And yep i will do that, i will try to reorganize the different thought in one place.

[AaronG]

Really interesting conversation.

I can't help but think of flight simulators.  You see, I've always been tempted to blow a couple hundred bucks on a really nice pair of flight-stick controllers and use them with any of the flight games out there.  I'm not really interested in playing a flight simulator without the unique controllers, though.  I want the sensation of being a pilot, expertly adjusting my joystick and throttle.

Most flight simulators do offer some form of goal - pilot the airliner, deliver the cargo, shoot down the enemy fighters - but my interest in them is purely for the sake of the role.  That role would be diminished without the goals that give it context the same way it's diminished by my lack of special hardware.  In a way the game - the flight simulator software - is just one component of a grander "toy".

As designers we should obviously be aware of the input device(s) the player is using with our games but do you think hardware plays into the object-subject, goal-role issue?

I also wonder if games like Grand Theft Auto or The Elder Scrolls only have goals to give a similar context to the experience of being a public enemy or a fanciful adventurer.  I personally see this all as different than a game like Metal Gear Solid where I enjoy playing the role of "spy" but the main draw of the game for me is the thrill of timing stealth kills/sneaking by (that is, fulfilling the designed goal).

I'm starting to get lost as well, though, so I'm curious to hear what you all think.  Where do you imagine flight simulators, fishing and hunting games and even sports games fall in the discussion?

[jwk5]

Sandbox games all remind me of the episode of Twilight Zone where the man dies and goes to 'heaven', gets everything (and everyone) he wants when he wants it, and then realizes he's in hell.

I'm not sure what that says for people who would enjoy getting everything they want when they want it.

-SirNiko

I think people want so that they have a reason to continue. Usually when someone gets what they want it isn't too long before they are bored of it and want something else. Most people think they want to have all their wants fulfilled because it keeps them wanting more, I think.

Code:

Want + Action = Progression

[FatHat]

Sandbox games all remind me of the episode of Twilight Zone where the man dies and goes to 'heaven', gets everything (and everyone) he wants when he wants it, and then realizes he's in hell.

I'm not sure what that says for people who would enjoy getting everything they want when they want it.

-SirNiko

I think people want so that they have a reason to continue. Usually when someone gets what they want it isn't too long before they are bored of it and want something else. Most people think they want to have all their wants fulfilled because it keeps them wanting more, I think.

Code:

Want + Action = Progression

I think that formula works well until the player realizes that what they're wanting is similar to what they already have -- IE you start to realize that the fancy new armor isn't different in a qualitative way, just a quantitative way. Once the player starts to realize that I think it leads to disillusionment.

On the other hand, I think it takes a long time for players to notice... since people seem to play games like World of Warcraft forever.

[SirNiko]

Sandbox games all remind me of the episode of Twilight Zone where the man dies and goes to 'heaven', gets everything (and everyone) he wants when he wants it, and then realizes he's in hell.

I'm not sure what that says for people who would enjoy getting everything they want when they want it.

-SirNiko

I think people want so that they have a reason to continue. Usually when someone gets what they want it isn't too long before they are bored of it and want something else. Most people think they want to have all their wants fulfilled because it keeps them wanting more, I think.

Code:

Want + Action = Progression

I think that formula works well until the player realizes that what they're wanting is similar to what they already have -- IE you start to realize that the fancy new armor isn't different in a qualitative way, just a quantitative way. Once the player starts to realize that I think it leads to disillusionment.

On the other hand, I think it takes a long time for players to notice... since people seem to play games like World of Warcraft forever.

Armor in WoW is more than just an upgrade in numbers. It frequently serves as a badge of honor, that you managed to get the armor from the epic boss that others could not.

There's also the appearance of the armor: there's a reason why they preview the new looks in advance and it gets everyone excited. For some players, it's about getting some cool new equipment to show off.

WoW rewards players on more levels than just a quantitative boost in numbers. The numbers game is there, especially in some of the high-end meta-game bits, but it's not the entirety of the game.

There are shallow RPGs (MMO or otherwise) that play as pointless numbers games. I don't think WoW is one of them.

-SirNiko

[Parthon]

Armor in WoW is more than just an upgrade in numbers. It frequently serves as a badge of honor, that you managed to get the armor from the epic boss that others could not.

Watching my friends in end game WoW makes it more quantitive, to feed their e-peen.

They want higher numbers when they click their buttons, so they strive for what's called "best in slot" gear. They often don't care how it looks as long as they have more DPS.

For an MMO that does the goal-less sim very well, check out WurmOnline. It's quite realistic, but is generally one big medieval sandbox, with no goals besides what the player sets.

Also: Throw an increasable stat into the game and people will be desperate to raise it. Exp in RPGs. Kill Count in FPS. This is pretty much the basis behind achievements. Achievements in a completely open game would be a great attractor. The player would feel like he's accomplishing something because he's ticking items off a list, even though it's not much different than setting his own goals.

[Mephs]

I think this is why games like Burnout are so fun.  Crash mode in specific.

There is no failure as such.  Only varying degrees of success.  If you happen to only take out a single car, well.. you didn't lose, you just didn't win very well.  I guess there are objectives in the form of the medals required to unlock new levels, but it's never "Game Over".

It's all positive feedback, but you still get the competetive element of gameplay trying to get a better and better score.  This then allows the player to layer their own objectives above and beyond that which is specified by the gameplay, so it ends up giving just the right level of challenge to most players organically.  It can be enjoyed equally  by those who just want to have a fun experience wih little pressure as by those who are very competetive.

[FatHat]

Sandbox games all remind me of the episode of Twilight Zone where the man dies and goes to 'heaven', gets everything (and everyone) he wants when he wants it, and then realizes he's in hell.

I'm not sure what that says for people who would enjoy getting everything they want when they want it.

-SirNiko

I think people want so that they have a reason to continue. Usually when someone gets what they want it isn't too long before they are bored of it and want something else. Most people think they want to have all their wants fulfilled because it keeps them wanting more, I think.

Code:

Want + Action = Progression

I think that formula works well until the player realizes that what they're wanting is similar to what they already have -- IE you start to realize that the fancy new armor isn't different in a qualitative way, just a quantitative way. Once the player starts to realize that I think it leads to disillusionment.

On the other hand, I think it takes a long time for players to notice... since people seem to play games like World of Warcraft forever.

Armor in WoW is more than just an upgrade in numbers. It frequently serves as a badge of honor, that you managed to get the armor from the epic boss that others could not.

There's also the appearance of the armor: there's a reason why they preview the new looks in advance and it gets everyone excited. For some players, it's about getting some cool new equipment to show off.

WoW rewards players on more levels than just a quantitative boost in numbers. The numbers game is there, especially in some of the high-end meta-game bits, but it's not the entirety of the game.

There are shallow RPGs (MMO or otherwise) that play as pointless numbers games. I don't think WoW is one of them.

-SirNiko

I don't disagree with any of that, but my point was mostly that it doesn't (usually) lead to new play actions/possibilities, it's just improving your effectiveness at what you're currently able to do. The social factors are clearly very strong (possibly the most important part) in WoW's case.