- Aug 4, 2017
- Reaction score
- First Language
- Primarily Uses
My bad. My description wasn't inclusive enough. By my definition, elections, musical performances, classes, and trials are all games. I only mentioned entertainment because it was most relevant to this topic and my experience. But you're absolutely right.Maybe we should step outside of the realm of entertainment if you want to explore game theory. There are other kinds of games that we don't normally think of as games because they're not played by people or done for fun.
Heck, we could consider this argument/discussion a game. Every player has their own reason for participating. Some just want to discuss topics like these, others want to "win," as you've mentioned. I won't even try pointing fingers at anyone, since that's against my "victory condition," if you will. It doesn't push the discussion in a way I find useful for my ends.
This is my definition that I've given you, not someone I got from somebody else. I may have started with Extra Credits stuff, but they never talked about this AFAIK. I've been building my portfolio for a decade now, and I've been analyzing games all the way. This is what I've come up with after hearing enough arguments about topics like this. (No professional experience yet, but I'll get there! It turns out that there are a lot of CS classes to go through to get a degree... )You can't understand them as games by reading a wikipedia definition.
Agreed, and keeping it into scope is pretty important. Talking about how a prosecutor attempts to win a court case isn't going to get us anywhere. But we might be a little limited on the terms we may use, or may use things in ways that don't quite jive with any "generic" terms that come up.I realize when people talk about "games" here they really mean their project. And therefore "gamedesign" in that sense implicates storytelling and marketing and whatever other associations could possible draw into it because they do everything themselves.
Um... I don't think so. But I suppose it's best that I give an example. Tell me if your intuition is correct after reading this example, please.I almost get the sense that you mean mechanics in the way that I mean gameplay. But I'm having trouble penetrating your lingo.
I think of mechanics as the simplest of rules. MDA defines them as "the particular components of the game, at the level of data representation and algorithms." For example, my game has a weapon switching mechanic. The player may choose to make a party member swap weapons. Every weapon provides a unique set of skills, and there are situations when certain weapons are more useful than others. Furthermore, swords have a combo system and guns have an ammo system, which both reset upon switching.
Using MDA's definition, these four mechanics (weapon switching, combos/ammo, weapon-based-skills, and type-effectiveness) work together to (hopefully) produce a dynamic of choices determining efficiency and damage output. For example, if you switch right after you run out of bullets, you don't waste a turn reloading. But these bullets are "lost" if you switch sooner. (No, bullets are not a finite resource. We're talking turn-efficiency here.)
This, along with other things like the AI and limited resources come together to (hopefully) produce the aesthetic of a mental challenge. The overall goal of these systems is to make players plan ahead and make decisions. To make them feel like they're winning because they're making wise decisions, rather than following a perfectly set path.
Alright, I suppose I have to say that my game isn't the best example. I haven't gotten nearly as much testing as I would have liked. I don't really know if any of these mechanics supply the dynamics or aesthetics I intended. However, it's one of my more recent projects, and it's most relevant to this forum.