Let's Talk Games

[McJobless]

What is a game? What makes a game fun? Why do, and why should games exist?

 

I've been thinking about these questions for years, and I've finally got satisfactory answers (at least in my opinion), but before I say anything, I'm interested in seeing what you guys think beforehand. I'd really appreciate some responses, since there's probably things I haven't considered just yet.

[ProNoob13]

Quoting ProNoob's personal common English dictionary (2014):

 

Game (noun) - Pronunciation: kamh

 

An activity created with the entertainment of a small number of people as it's sole purpose

 

From the beginning of time, humans have been making games. Mostly to entertain the kings, emperors and other wealthy people in order to keep them entertained while they didn't have to do any work to survive. And, as the common man had to work less and less in order to survive, the games became more widespread, opening up a new market called "the entertainment industry". Of course, back then, the industry wasn't the same as it is now, but the idea is the same: gain wealth by providing entertainment.

 

And, why they're fun? Because they trigger endorphins. Either by the feeling of accomplishment (completing a quest in a MMORPG, getting a full street in Monopoly, getting a new pawn on the field in Ludo or simply winning a game), the feeling of competition ("I'm not gonna let you win that easy!" or "I'm supposed to better at this than you!"), the feeling of being in control (LEGO Loco, The Sims, checkers), or the feeling of unaccomplishment ("I have to make it through this level!"). That's why, if you ask me.

[someswedish]

What is a game? A game is something that takes many forms and shapes, but all share one thing in common. Where there is a game, there are players. Players who are either given a goal to work towards or freedom to do whatever they desire. Players who work together, against each other or by themselves. No game can exists without players and vise versa.

 

What makes games fun? That depends on the game, some games are simply for entertainments in which players are amused. other games are simply devoid of anything resembling fun, most likely games in which the players are at risk of either wealth or life for example. but for how a game can be fun, i think the answer lies more in what 'fun' is itself. by answering that question, we know to make a game fun, you need to present whatever it is that makes 'fun' fun

 

Why do games exist, and why should they do so? Games exist because they are fulfilling one way or another, some people play games to have fun, to prove themselves superiors to others, to get that the others posses by risking your own possessions and many many reasons that exists. as long as games can fulfill desires, they will continue to exist until either a better method to fulfill desires presents itself or we have no longer need fulfilling our desires anymore. making games obsolete and useless.

[BobaFett2]

The main thing I look for in a game is a vibrant storyline. Obviously, the kind of storyline you can expect in a game varies, depending on when it was made, the game type, and the level of complexity of the game.

 

The best platformer I've ever played, Cave Story, has a strong storyline. Starwish is a fun, free, space shooter with a surprisingly well-developed and engaging storyline (which actually affects how the game ends). Funny but well-developed stories, like that in DudeQuest, are also great. The above three games are all free (although you can buy an upgraded Cave Story on Steam), so you can find them and try them out to see what I mean.

 

Part of what makes games great is that you get to live inside a universe other than your own. Many casual games don't grant this, but a truly amazing game is one in which you can relate to the characters around you and get a feel for their lives.

[LEGOCyborg12]

The Characters and the Plot

[Seaborgium]

Every game has rules. Board games, sports, video games etc.

 

I guess I would define rules as what you can and can't do.

 

Whether a game has a definable end goal or not, the activity in the game must be fun. So if you're playing tag, the running and dodging should be fun. If you're playing chess, you should enjoy the mental challenge. If you're playing a video game, you should enjoy exploring the world, fighting the baddies, solving the puzzles etc.

 

The rules should be conducive to the enjoyable activity. This seems odd that limits should cause enjoyment, but if you think about it, it makes sense. We are limited creatures and need boundaries to understand things. We are going todo activities if the rules are conducive to them. We will fight in a fighting game, solve puzzles in a puzzle game etc. Limits helps us explore what we can do with in them. In basketball, you can't just pick up the ball and run. This makes us dribble and enjoy the challenge of dribbling.

 

I keep using this "we" pronoun. That's important in games. You need a player or players. Your interaction with the game makes the game what it is. 

 

So how would I define "game"? I'm not entirely sure. Since I cannot, I will cease rambling and see what other people have to say.

[Alcom Isst]

I've discovered recently in academia that I have an odd habit of splitting terms into sub-terms, usually into a pair. Analyzing this question, I noticed that I've done the same thing to my definition of "Game". With what I've compiled from the various videos I've watched and discussions I've had on RRU, what a game is to me can be split into two concepts: Games-as-play, and Games-as-narrative.

Games-as-play are completely recreational activities with an artificial failure state that the player must overcome to get their satisfaction from the game. A good* game-as-play presents each problem in a way the player can understand it, and provides the right level of challenge and freedom so that the player feels challenged and not frustrated.

Games-as-narrative are stories with interactive elements. They will not progress the story if the player fails, or give the player freedom to choose the story's outcome or events. A good* game-as-narrative will leave the player satisfied with the story, the fantasy or world the game establishes, the role they got to play, and/or what they learned from the story.

Most games are a hybrid of these concepts, though there are pure forms of either.

*Quality is subjective and satisfaction will vary between players.

[Quisoves Potoo]

Let's start with the the basics of a game: Framework, interactivity, and experience.

 

The framework is, in essence, the body and engine of the game. How the game is played is determined by this. Without it, there is no game. It is the difference between random running around and a game of tag. At the very least, the framework comprises the rules of the game. It usually also includes physical elements such as a baseball or a deck of cards.

 

Now, not any framework makes a  game. A game must be playable. Without interactivity, there is no player. The person involved with a game changes it, in some meaningful way.

 

Finally, the difference between a game and another kind of interactive framework is the experience. Whereas a real war is fought not for the sake of war, but for some consequent benefit, a game based on war (e.g. Axis and Allies or Call of Duty) is played for an overall experience, of which the end result is merely a part. The aggressor in a war would have gladly employed easier means to the same end, had he been able to. The player in a war game is concerned with the journey he takes to reach the end result.

 

So, given these basics, how does one incorporate them in a way that the player can enjoy? One must create a game whose framework and the interactivity allowed by the framework complement each other. The framework should be ready for deviations on the part of player from the intended flow and function of the game. Voya Nui Online game is a prime example of a game which relies upon a very drone-like reaction from the player. If the player fails to punctually follow the instructions of Garan and the other Matoran, instead choosing to wander the island fighting and collecting loot and experience, he will quickly grow too powerful for much of a meaningful challenge from the various foes he is assigned to fight. That the game was designed to be played in this drone-like fashion becomes evident, perhaps most strikingly in a sequence in which Garan informs the player that the Matoran village is under attack and that the player had best put an end to the attack by hunting down and defeating one of the Piraka lickity-split, Should the player, however, decide to visit the village, instead of immediately going after the Piraka, he will find no danger, the Matoran there simply responding to him with their typical "I'm too busy little Toa, bother me another  time." This brings us to the next element of an enjoyable game: Challenge. Fighting Rahi and robots and Skakdi criminals is all very well when a decent amount of effort is required, but when one can fell any foe with a strike or two of one's weapon, and the sheer number of enemies cannot make up for their lack of power, then combat becomes an annoyance. Challenge is a vital part of the experience of playing a game.

 

Randomness another valuable element in a game, albeit not a vital one. Many board games employ random elements, thus challenging the player with unpredictability and variety.

 

The accidental features of a game, though they should be of primary importance, should not hinder the player's enjoyment. This applies mostly to digital games. Poor graphics or annoying sounds can prevent the player from actually enjoying the important parts of the game. When used well, however, accidental elements can help to immerse the player in the game.

 

There are more things that I can discuss, and hopefully will later (though likely not until Tuesday, due to a four day trip my family is taking.) But now, I must be going. Cheers!

[lol username]

*stuff*

Not vastly different from how I place games (if all of them can be called that - terminology like that is often finicky) on an imaginary line or spectrum. I've always sort of thought in somewhat similar terms (but definitely different, more below), but didn't really have any solid terms for them. Then I found this, and now refer to them simply as roleplay and competition - roleplay as "simply" exploring and inhabiting a virtual world, and competition as competing against something (another player, the computer, or the system as a whole) to achieve some goal, with definite goals with victory and failure states (trying to beat a high score, winning a match, whatever). I also realized that 99% of the conflicting ideas I'd been dealing with for years on my game designs were the result of me essentially wanting two games, one towards the extreme end of roleplay, the other gravitating a lot more towards competition. So, I've simply split the warring concepts into two designs instead of trying to cram them into one, and it's worked well.

Anyway - to explain the difference mentioned above, specifically the "games-as-narrative" thing, I initially had a growing paragraph or two here, but instead, just watch this. It's well worth your time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGTV8qLbBWE

Seriously. Watch this.

Also read this: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/2173/book_excerpt_a_theory_of_game_.php

[Car CrazeXVI]

what why did this post
I didn't mean to post here.

I really don't have anything to post here.
Oops.
Um... sorry..

please make this post go away

[McJobless]

My answer to the subject is pretty long. You can find it in a blog entry >HERE.

[Seaborgium]

I've discovered recently in academia that I have an odd habit of splitting terms into sub-terms, usually into a pair. Analyzing this question, I noticed that I've done the same thing to my definition of "Game". With what I've compiled from the various videos I've watched and discussions I've had on RRU, what a game is to me can be split into two concepts: Games-as-play, and Games-as-narrative.

Games-as-play are completely recreational activities with an artificial failure state that the player must overcome to get their satisfaction from the game. A good* game-as-play presents each problem in a way the player can understand it, and provides the right level of challenge and freedom so that the player feels challenged and not frustrated.

Games-as-narrative are stories with interactive elements. They will not progress the story if the player fails, or give the player freedom to choose the story's outcome or events. A good* game-as-narrative will leave the player satisfied with the story, the fantasy or world the game establishes, the role they got to play, and/or what they learned from the story.

Most games are a hybrid of these concepts, though there are pure forms of either.

*Quality is subjective and satisfaction will vary between players.

 

Hmm. Interesting. I'm not entirely sure if I agree but it gave me some thoughts.

 

I would rather separate games into "games as challenge" and "game as experience" .Whether any game can truly be purely classified as either is uncertain to me, so I guess these are more different focuses on a game.

 

Games as challenges have a direct object. In chess, the object is to checkmate the other player. In a fps game, it is to kill the baddies. These games have a known, direct purpose. While the games are still enjoyable even if you don't win, the primary enjoyment comes from trying to win, from doing your best.

 

Games as experience, may have a purpose. However the enjoyment comes from the experience. Whether this be from interacting with the game and seeing what you can do within the rules, or from how you play the game, you enjoy the game through what experiences it may bring, and not necessarily because of how close you get to winning the game. Such examples of games might be table-top RPGs or forum games.

 

These examples aren't very good, but I hope they kind of illustrate my notion.