Comments on: Brenda on Perception of Meaningful Choice http://www.jeffongames.com/2008/04/brenda-on-perception-of-meaningful-choice/ This is Jeff. This is Jeff On Games. Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:20:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: bbrathwaite http://www.jeffongames.com/2008/04/brenda-on-perception-of-meaningful-choice/#comment-21028 bbrathwaite Thu, 24 Apr 2008 02:07:48 +0000 http://www.jeffongames.com/?p=104#comment-21028 Jeff, Don't know that I buy *no* choice in games. I get what you're saying - it's all known beforehand, every possibility. That's true. Likewise, I'm going on vacation in the US this year. I wonder where I will choose to go? :) Brenda Jeff,

Don’t know that I buy *no* choice in games. I get what you’re saying - it’s all known beforehand, every possibility. That’s true. Likewise, I’m going on vacation in the US this year. I wonder where I will choose to go? :)

Brenda

]]> By: Jeff http://www.jeffongames.com/2008/04/brenda-on-perception-of-meaningful-choice/#comment-20972 Jeff Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:23:13 +0000 http://www.jeffongames.com/?p=104#comment-20972 Andres, I'm not sure I'm understanding you completely. If you talk about a game where you can change the rules arbitrarily, then you're talking about a game maker aren't you, which is more of a tool than a game. You can make it a game if you want, I'm sure, but that gets into another issue. If you're talking about a game where rules change based on actions, then the initial rules need to be decided on, and then the way new rules are introduced is understood (see games like Fluxx). These games work usually because the types of rules you can introduce and the ending conditions are known by all players (so long as they've played the game before). By expanding the number of rules... things get complicated. As for a player completely "defining his own experience"... that's a bit over rated in my opinion. This idea that a player wants to control everything in a game at all times is ludicrous. Being the option to control everything tends to cause freedom paralysis, a state where a player has so much stuff available to him, he doesn't know where to start. This happens at different levels at different times for all people, but it does happen. What you really need to find out is what types of affects does a player want to have on a system, and cater your rules so that they can obviously feel that affect when they take the proper action. Andres,

I’m not sure I’m understanding you completely. If you talk about a game where you can change the rules arbitrarily, then you’re talking about a game maker aren’t you, which is more of a tool than a game. You can make it a game if you want, I’m sure, but that gets into another issue.

If you’re talking about a game where rules change based on actions, then the initial rules need to be decided on, and then the way new rules are introduced is understood (see games like Fluxx). These games work usually because the types of rules you can introduce and the ending conditions are known by all players (so long as they’ve played the game before). By expanding the number of rules… things get complicated.

As for a player completely “defining his own experience”… that’s a bit over rated in my opinion. This idea that a player wants to control everything in a game at all times is ludicrous. Being the option to control everything tends to cause freedom paralysis, a state where a player has so much stuff available to him, he doesn’t know where to start. This happens at different levels at different times for all people, but it does happen. What you really need to find out is what types of affects does a player want to have on a system, and cater your rules so that they can obviously feel that affect when they take the proper action.

]]> By: Andres Ortiz http://www.jeffongames.com/2008/04/brenda-on-perception-of-meaningful-choice/#comment-20966 Andres Ortiz Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:23:50 +0000 http://www.jeffongames.com/?p=104#comment-20966 What's your opinion on the idea of a completely emergent game--one where a self-creating game builds itself out of the player's actions? The idea's been put forth my a friend of mine time and time again, and I think he's getting around to try to program the complex algorithms that would go into building the universe. While the rules of the game would still be preprogrammed and based on the code already set in stone to make the game run, the player would have a direct affect on the outcome of the game. I've begun to call this idea the "Creation Game"--a game that's created as you play it. Not to be confused with Will Wright's Creation/Simulation games. The reason I think this is viable enough to classify as true free gameplay is because there's sufficient rules to build the universe but none that limit a player's creativity to create their own game experience. After all, in the real world we're ruled by plenty of laws and regulations--like Gravity, for instance, which we really can't avoid. But that doesn't stop us from defining our own experience. What’s your opinion on the idea of a completely emergent game–one where a self-creating game builds itself out of the player’s actions? The idea’s been put forth my a friend of mine time and time again, and I think he’s getting around to try to program the complex algorithms that would go into building the universe.
While the rules of the game would still be preprogrammed and based on the code already set in stone to make the game run, the player would have a direct affect on the outcome of the game. I’ve begun to call this idea the “Creation Game”–a game that’s created as you play it. Not to be confused with Will Wright’s Creation/Simulation games.

The reason I think this is viable enough to classify as true free gameplay is because there’s sufficient rules to build the universe but none that limit a player’s creativity to create their own game experience. After all, in the real world we’re ruled by plenty of laws and regulations–like Gravity, for instance, which we really can’t avoid. But that doesn’t stop us from defining our own experience.

]]>