>> I don't really consider sandbox Minecraft a game any more than building something out of Legos or a stick fort in the woods is a game. Is it fun? Yes! Is it

>> I don't really consider sandbox Minecraft a game any more than building something out of Legos or a stick fort in the woods is a game. Is it fun? Yes! Is it creative? Yes! Is it a game? I would say no. >So now kids playing with legos isn't a game becuase it lacks conflict? ... That's... not a very realistic definition in my book. I have _never_ heard anyone call building with Legos a game. Heck, Lego themselves made a theme called "Lego Games" where you built games to play with out of Legos! This wouldn't make very much sense if they considered Legos themselves to be a game. So yes, I wouldn't call building with Legos a game, I would say that it is playing with a toy. In the same spirit I would say playing sandbox Minecraft is playing with a virtual toy. > There is a scarcity mode if you want it, yes. But it's not exactly actual scarcity. It's more like, "You just need to wait longer to do action X." There aren't hard choices to be made nor are there ever dead ends from those choices. OK, I must have misunderstood what you meant by scarcity. I took it to mean that you have no limits on your resources, not that it had to be very difficult to obtain those resources and that there had to be a finite amount of them to allow dead ends. >> For rougelikes, isn't the goal often to beat the end boss? Obviously the journey has to be fun or people won't play, but they still have a goal or give you enough space and tools to let you define your own. > Not really? Lost of the famous ones have a goal that is not "kill a thing" but rather "escape with an object" which is always harder. Rogue never had an end. Nethack has you escape with an item; actually fighting the Wizard of Yendor is a waste of resources. Dead Cells has tons of endings and a few don't even involve final bosses. As you can probably tell I haven't played many rougelikes so thanks for showing me that they are a lot more diverse than I thought. However, I would still say that they all have conflict, just not always violent conflict. > Well this is another subtle cultural perspective, isn't it? Success, PUBG and Fortnite's Battle Royale posit, come from external validation. You have to want both the validation and agree that getting it is an accomplishment. Not really? Success is winning a round. There is nothing external in that. _Wanting_ to win a round of PUBG can be external (although I wouldn't agree that it has to be, lots of people just find that kind of game fun) but actually winning a round of PUBG isn't. >> . I'm just saying that for a game to be fun it needs to let the player have goals to work towards and some kind of conflict (NOT necessary person on person conflict) that makes the player work to achieve their goals >With all respect: I think you want to say this but in fact your words betray you. Your first instinct for game conflict is violence. I somewhat agree with the point you've made, but I want to point out how your worldview undermines that point. Wow, I guess I've been lying to myself all these years about how I don't like graphic violence or gore in games or movies. Thanks for telling me my true self internet stranger! /s But seriously, I've said multiple times that I don't like those kind of games. Battlefield, PubG, Fortnight, and all the other person on person combat/battle games could have never been made and I would be perfectly happy. If you think I'm lying that's fine, but I'm not going to continue to discuss this if that's the case.