[MUD-Dev2] Risk vs Reward [was: Value]

[Matt Chatterley]

On 14/09/06, cruise <cruise at casual-tempest.net> wrote:
>
> Thus spake Matt Chatterley...
> > Other than that, an interesting thought occurs.
> >
> > Most (if not all) choices in "The Sims" are weak. Yet the game enjoys
> > immense popularity (as does it's sequel), and many people will admit to
> > having misplaced many hours of their lives playing this sort of game -
> even
> > though the only more-or-less irreversable decisions are those which are
> > dangerous or dumb. Or are they?
> >
>
[Snip myself]
>
> In "Rules of Play" Salen and Zimmerman use the term "meaningful choices"
> - which is much more descriptive to my mind. It's a choice where the
> effect of the outcomes is obvious to the player at the time they make
> the choice, and they care about those effects.
>
> Chosing the layout of your house, or the colour of the walls is actual a
> meaningful choice to that player. It matters a great deal to them how
> their house looks and what the decor is like. My wife isn't interested
> in playing CoH in the slightest, but she'll spend hours with the
> standalone character creator.
>
> Some choices are given meaning by the context of the game, and others by
> the player themselves. The balance between those two defines how
> "sandboxy" the game feels, and also controls what risk and rewards will
> be effective.
>
>
This is also interesting. But, should we simply re-label "weak" choices as
"pointless" choices, or are the two things distinct?

If wandering around a game world can be seem as a weak choice when it has
very little lasting impact on the game (no direct consequences); it cannot
also be said to be pointless, as it clearly allows the player to change the
outcome of his game - by going to different places and exploring the world
(indirect consequences).

Therefore could we view this as another facet of this issue - how rapid the
consequences of a choice are?

Weak choice - little, or very faint (indirect) consequences - which may
often take a while to manifest (so as to seem disassociated from an
individual decision but rather the outcome of a long stream of very basic
choices)

Strong choice - severe or important, direct consequences - which are felt
fairly swiftly.

Meaningful choice - where (in context), the player feels that they have made
a decision, passing some sort of milestone - often self created

Pointless choice - where the player achieves nothing at all (perhaps the
same as stupid or intrinsically and obviously bad choices?).

I get the feeling I'm getting carried away. My current link of thought is
that all games are made out of choices on some level, but, for a multiplayer
online game such as a Mud, is there a 'sweet spot' where the choices are
neither too hard or too simple - and if so, how can we quanitfy this
(perhaps in context of a specific group of players?)...?



Cheers,

-- 
Matt Chatterley