[MUD-Dev2] [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellent commentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system]

[Lachek Butalek]

On 3/5/07, cruise <cruise at casual-tempest.net> wrote:
> Thus spake Sean Howard...
> > That is a terrible question, partly because "enjoyable" is completely
> > subjective and because "enjoyable" is a product required only by
> > entertainment - games can be a lot of things beyond entertainment, even if
> > the game industry doesn't care yet.
>
> We'll have to disagree on that point. If I'm not enjoying it, it's no
> longer a game.

That's a very narrow definition of a game. I hope I'm not taking your
words out of context here, but doesn't that mean that, to you,
something you do not enjoy ceases to be a game despite someone else
enjoying it? What about if you're temporarily disenchanted with the
game for whatever reason, does it then lose its game nature?

Someone more learned than me could likely validate and rephrase this
concept in proper terminology, but if a game constantly remains at the
exact same degree of enjoyment, do your senses not dull towards it?
Does the game not need a temporary setback - a decrease in enjoyment,
if you will, as you need to repeat efforts (be that by trying the jump
in Super Mario Bros again and again, or grinding the same old mobs to
regain your XP)?

If Sonic constantly went at breakneck speeds, you wouldn't be able to
play for an extended sitting - you need the "boring" downtime.
If an adventure game constantly dropped twists into the story, one
after another, you'd eventually get bored.
If you always fired headshot in an FPS, it would certainly lose its
challenge and turn into a dull killfest.
If you never suffered a loss in an MMORPG, your completion of the Uber
Raid Instance of Doom would just be pointless.

Losing in a game isn't "fun" or "enjoyable", but is a required facet
of the game to ensure the remainder is enjoyable. Both single-player
and MMORPGs has of late been far too lenient in allowing the player to
succeed at anything they do, and frankly it turns the game "on rails"
and boring.

Terra Nova had a decent commentary on this here:
http://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2007/02/oh_tragedy.html

Moreover, is the "game" of workplace politics enjoyable? Very rarely.
What about the "game" of navigating government bureaucracy? Haven't
met a person yet that enjoys it.
What about the "game" of marketing?
And so on, with any number of real life examples.

All these have obvious "game" like qualities, in terms of utilizing
cognitive processes and pattern recognition to guide your manipulation
of a system to further an end beneficial to yourself. Yet they are
rarely, if ever, enjoyable to most sane individuals.

Lachek