4 ms·

I'd say there's 4 kinds of games: 1. Sports. You practice, get good, compete. 2. Effort is rewarded. "Effort" is a very vague thing. It could be not dying/luc

by muzani 5y ago

I'd say there's 4 kinds of games: 1. Sports. You practice, get good, compete. 2. Effort is rewarded. "Effort" is a very vague thing. It could be not dying/luck (roguelikes, Hearthstone), it could be clicking a button 1000 times. It could be problems (Factorio) or wiki games (DF, Stardew Valley). The reward is sometimes satisfaction (Factorio/chess), sometimes a movie-like denouement (FF), sometimes a thing of beauty (Civ, DF) 3. Socialization, e.g. Roblox, Minecraft, Among Us. Solve a problem together. 4. Actions lead to consequences, e.g. D&D, Reigns, AI Dungeon, The Sims. The last one is the "purest" form of gaming, in that it's a medium that only games can do well. But it's also the hardest to do and difficult to make money off. I'd hope that this kind of restrictions will lead to China making more Type 4 games. Hopefully games that can lead to a satisfactory conclusion within 2-3 hours like the average movie.

account42 5y ago
Your category (2) is extremely vague and all-encompassing. I'd split off at least two distinct categories: 5. Games that are about providing a certain experience: walking simulators, horror games, casual adventure games, story focused games. Here there, effort is often not really a focus at all and while you could say that you are "rewarded" for simply playing the game that is stretching it and could be applied to any game that is enjoyable in some way. 6. Puzzle games - here the challenge itself is the reward but unlike (1) the challenge is problem solving and not competition. Of course like any genre system real games will not fit neatly in one of these categories but have aspects from multiple of them. > The last one is the "purest" form of gaming, in that it's a medium that only games can do well. Yeah no. While the interactive medium is a great tool for showing consequences, it is not required. Meanwhile many things in the other categories also benefit greatly from it. > Hopefully games that can lead to a satisfactory conclusion within 2-3 hours like the average movie. I wouldn't really want to hold the "average movie" as something games should strive for. I'm all for cutting down on grind, 2-3 hours is a really short time to learn complex mechanics or get immersed in the world and characters.
- muzani 5y ago
  Maybe I could rephrase it a bit. I don't mean all games should try to be short, but right now there are almost none. Few game designers aspire to make a game that's done in 2 hours and worth $8. Chess is a bloody complex game and you can play a round to full satisfaction in 15 minutes. You have your complexity, but it's enough to enjoy yourself 3 hours/week. Most movies will immerse you in the world and the characters well within the first 15 minutes. Today, you have something like Fallout 4 where it takes an hour from customizing your character's face to leaving the vault. I think Adam Cadre's games are a great example: http://adamcadre.ac/if.html http://adamcadre.ac/if.html What separated the Interactive Fiction from Adventure genre was that IF was more on interacting with the player's actions. You could achieve a goal and unlock endings, or just explore. You could get a full story well within a couple hours because the games are designed to avoid you from getting stuck. Adventure games were plagued with resource management and metagaming; once you remove the unnecessary grind of puzzle solving, you get a denser game.

by muzani 5y ago

account42 5y ago

Your category (2) is extremely vague and all-encompassing. I'd split off at least two distinct categories: 5. Games that are about providing a certain experience: walking simulators, horror games, casual adventure games, story focused games. Here there, effort is often not really a focus at all and while you could say that you are "rewarded" for simply playing the game that is stretching it and could be applied to any game that is enjoyable in some way. 6. Puzzle games - here the challenge itself is the reward but unlike (1) the challenge is problem solving and not competition. Of course like any genre system real games will not fit neatly in one of these categories but have aspects from multiple of them. > The last one is the "purest" form of gaming, in that it's a medium that only games can do well. Yeah no. While the interactive medium is a great tool for showing consequences, it is not required. Meanwhile many things in the other categories also benefit greatly from it. > Hopefully games that can lead to a satisfactory conclusion within 2-3 hours like the average movie. I wouldn't really want to hold the "average movie" as something games should strive for. I'm all for cutting down on grind, 2-3 hours is a really short time to learn complex mechanics or get immersed in the world and characters.

muzani 5y ago
Maybe I could rephrase it a bit. I don't mean all games should try to be short, but right now there are almost none. Few game designers aspire to make a game that's done in 2 hours and worth $8. Chess is a bloody complex game and you can play a round to full satisfaction in 15 minutes. You have your complexity, but it's enough to enjoy yourself 3 hours/week. Most movies will immerse you in the world and the characters well within the first 15 minutes. Today, you have something like Fallout 4 where it takes an hour from customizing your character's face to leaving the vault. I think Adam Cadre's games are a great example: http://adamcadre.ac/if.html http://adamcadre.ac/if.html What separated the Interactive Fiction from Adventure genre was that IF was more on interacting with the player's actions. You could achieve a goal and unlock endings, or just explore. You could get a full story well within a couple hours because the games are designed to avoid you from getting stuck. Adventure games were plagued with resource management and metagaming; once you remove the unnecessary grind of puzzle solving, you get a denser game.