Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

The strict definitions of "game" aren't that useful in real world situations.

e.g. the "game" in "game theory" would exclude many 1-player video games, because "game" is defined as a competition between choices made by 2 or more rational actors. e.g. if you're playing a game in which the enemies move in set routes, it's not a "game" according to game theory because the enemies doesn't make decisions. Additionally, if the enemy only makes predictable moves in response to your moves then it's just reactive and not really in the spirit of "game theory" games. The whole point of them is to make decisions not knowing what the enemy will pick. But then again, game theory does not say that each game needs a "winner" and a "loser", they just need some quantified outcome of each round (which is called a game).

However, when kids play make-believe it's also called a "game" even though there are no formal rules or win/loss conditions. Pretty much any attempt at a "definition" excludes a large chunk of what are normally considered games:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game
"A game is a form of art in which participants, termed players, make decisions in order to manage resources through game tokens in the pursuit of a goal". The "make decisions" bit here excludes any purely dice-rolling games from being games, so e.g. Snakes and Ladders isn't a game at all. And Monopoly wouldn't be a "game" at all, if you remove just a few of the rules (no auctions, no trading, no houses). So according to many definitions, Monopoly barely qualifies as a game.

A game of monopoly can go forever, so it has both infinite play-states and optional end conditions. Dwarf Fortress has end conditions in the sense of fortress destruction / character death. So it has end-states the same as Monopoly. Whether the states are subjective wins or losses is not important here. e.g. Monopoly's "win condition" of their only being 1  player left is clearly not a good outcome, since that last remaining player suffers a loss of income by the removal of all the other players: there is now nobody left to pay rent.

Take another example: Civilization. In "Civ" one end-state is to kill every other civilization, but it's not the only end state. Really, the only difference between Civ and DF is that Civ has predetermined states where the game turns itself off and you can't play anymore. Does that really make one a game and the other not a game?

[Thorfinn]

Take another example: Civilization. In "Civ" one end-state is to kill every other civilization, but it's not the only end state. Really, the only difference between Civ and DF is that Civ has predetermined states where the game turns itself off and you can't play anymore. Does that really make one a game and the other not a game?

IMO, a closer parallel is Flight Simulator. There's a bit at the beginning where your choices have some major influence, then you hit altitude, kick in the co-pilot, and sit back and watch for the next 6 hours until you begin your landing process. Of course, DF doesn't have that last bit, the landing, and the last hour of watching the autopilot actually takes 10 hours real time because the simulator is off doing things that have little bearing on how things play out.

[gnome]

I don't see a screen that tells me "You win" as a crucial component to what makes a game, as I am capable of seeking my own challenges as long as there are enough moving parts to a game. Especially when we're talking about games that are a mix of civilization management and survival - both are game types I would consider not to even need an end screen beyond "you have died". Sure - Civilization tells you that "you defeated all the other empires" - but wouldn't you know that anyway when you wipe the last one out? What difference does that bit of text make? There are many smaller goals you can choose to accomplish in DF that are organically born out of the complexity of the mechanics and the level of interactivity taking place in the game environment - but overall I would argue that the goal of the game is for your society to survive, no? It's only once you've gotten the hang of that that you really start to experiment with all the oddities of the game (like I want a zoo full of vicious wolfmen or something). So really in a sense you are winning from the getgo - the game is designed to throw a variety of challenges your way to make things difficult for you - and the harsher the scenario you survive through, the more you "won" in a sense. Because not only did you continue to succeed, you then have an epic story to reminisce over regarding that success. I think too many people put faith in the "YOU WON" end state of games to be the thing that triggers an endorphin release in your brain.

Besides, why do you need 5-6 rules of criteria? There's only one:

1. An interactive challenge participated in for the purposes of enjoyment.

Game.

[Eschar]

seeking my own challenges

Such as the Undergrotto.