online apps (was Re: Cable Connection - Now what?)
Eep²
One Punch Mickey wrote:
> >I've checked out a few
> > multiplayer games, but they're all a bunch of people running around
> > shooting each other--in other words, boring.
>
> Look, there's 3 types of online game. FPS's, which range from your
> Serious Sams to more considered affairs like Ghost Recon or Day of
> Defeat. There's online gambling. There's MMORPGs. I would suggest
> MMORPGs if you don't like shooting. All decent MMORPGs you have to pay
> for AFAIK.
redsniper7000
Eep² wrote in message <3D5D08CD...@tnlc.com>...
>Then there's Active Worlds (http://activeworlds.com/ ) and other VR
(virtual reality) programs which are trying to become multi-user level
editors (and Active Worlds is the closest but still has a LONG way to go)
that allow games (of which AW has basic board games) and other interaction
(building, chatting, "sight-seeing", etc). That's the future of online
gaming...
<reply>
Not it's not. A game has to be FUN.
One Punch Mickey
> Then there's Active Worlds (http://activeworlds.com/ ) and other VR
(virtual reality) programs which are trying to become
> multi-user level editors (and Active Worlds is the closest but still
has a LONG way to go) that allow games (of which AW has > basic board
games) and other interaction (building, chatting, "sight-seeing",
etc). That's the future of online gaming...
Impressive technology, but at the minute it looks to me like an OpenGL
chatroom. Still, everything has to start somewhere ...
Kent Dahl
Or as Marcy so well put it in http://www.pvponline.com/ somewhere...
"For it to be a game, someone has to win."
(or something like that, too lazy to dig out the strip in question)
Fun is just too subjective a criteria.
--
(\[ Kent Dahl ]/)_ _~_ __[ http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~kentda/ ]___/~
))\_student_/(( \__d L b__/ NTNU - graduate engineering - 5. year )
( \__\_õ|õ_/__/ ) _)Industrial economics and technological management(
\____/_ö_\____/ (____engineering.discipline_=_Computer::Technology___)
redsniper7000
Kent Dahl wrote in message <3D5D38BD...@stud.ntnu.no>...
>redsniper7000 wrote:
>>
>> Eep² wrote in message <3D5D08CD...@tnlc.com>...
>> >Then there's Active Worlds (http://activeworlds.com/ ) and other VR
>> (virtual reality) programs which are trying to become multi-user level
>> editors (and Active Worlds is the closest but still has a LONG way to go)
>> that allow games (of which AW has basic board games) and other
interaction
>> (building, chatting, "sight-seeing", etc). That's the future of online
>> gaming...
>>
>> <reply>
>>
>> Not it's not. A game has to be FUN.
>
>Or as Marcy so well put it in http://www.pvponline.com/ somewhere...
> "For it to be a game, someone has to win."
>(or something like that, too lazy to dig out the strip in question)
>
>Fun is just too subjective a criteria.
Heh, fair enough :) You still need gameplay for a game to be good. Eep
thinks those VRML programs are games.
Chris Proctor
news:3D5D38BD...@stud.ntnu.no:
> redsniper7000 wrote:
>> Not it's not. A game has to be FUN.
>
> Or as Marcy so well put it in http://www.pvponline.com/ somewhere...
> "For it to be a game, someone has to win."
> (or something like that, too lazy to dig out the strip in question)
>
> Fun is just too subjective a criteria.
Is a pen and paper Roleplaying Game a game? If so, who wins?
Chris
Robert Tweed
news:Xns926D7442FFDEAch...@61.9.128.12...
>
> >> Not it's not. A game has to be FUN.
> >
> > Or as Marcy so well put it in http://www.pvponline.com/ somewhere...
> > "For it to be a game, someone has to win."
> > (or something like that, too lazy to dig out the strip in question)
> >
> > Fun is just too subjective a criteria.
>
> Is a pen and paper Roleplaying Game a game? If so, who wins?
A more accurate criteria is that a game requires rules and at least one
goal. No-one actually has to win in order to acheive the set goals, although
it is obviously possible to have a winner.
If a game results in a draw, does that make it any less of a game? No: the
mere presence of goals defines the game, not whether anyone actually attains
them during play.
- Robert
Eep²
redsniper7000 wrote:
Eep²
Eep²
Eep²
Alex Sramek
Eep² wrote:
> Fun hardly requires winning; Maxis built an entire industry (the sim) based on non-winning games.
>
I wouldn't say the sim games are non-winning. They just don't have
end-game wins. They are games of smaller, incremental wins. Reach
10,000 population and get a statue, that's a win. Build your first
arco, that's a win. Destroy your town with aliens or monsters, that's
(strangely enough) a win. Just because you don't say "I won! I beat
the game!", doesn't mean you haven't won in some respect.
-Alex
Robert Tweed
news:3D5DF001...@csulb.edu...
>
> > Fun hardly requires winning; Maxis built an entire industry (the sim)
based on non-winning games.
>
> I wouldn't say the sim games are non-winning. They just don't have
> end-game wins. They are games of smaller, incremental wins. Reach
> 10,000 population and get a statue, that's a win. Build your first
> arco, that's a win. Destroy your town with aliens or monsters, that's
> (strangely enough) a win. Just because you don't say "I won! I beat
> the game!", doesn't mean you haven't won in some respect.
That's one way to look at it, but the Sim games are the subject of a lot of
discussion over whether they are games or toys. Since there is no in-built
definition of what is a goal and what isn't (the goals are the individual
goals of the player) I would say that it's a toy: what people do with it is
create their own game. It's a subtle difference, but it exists nonetheless.
- Robert
Eep²
Alex Sramek wrote:
> Eep² wrote:
>
> > Fun hardly requires winning; Maxis built an entire industry (the sim) based on non-winning games.
>
> I wouldn't say the sim games are non-winning. They just don't have
> end-game wins. They are games of smaller, incremental wins. Reach
> 10,000 population and get a statue, that's a win. Build your first
> arco, that's a win. Destroy your town with aliens or monsters, that's
> (strangely enough) a win. Just because you don't say "I won! I beat
> the game!", doesn't mean you haven't won in some respect.
>
Kent Dahl
Yes, that fits more with the definition of the abstract idea of a game,
whereas the quote from the strip is more related to an actual instance
of a game.
To add some meat to the bone: The PVP strip in question pitted Marcy
shaking her head over Jade calling EverQuest a game, subsequently
uttering the mentioned line. So if by RPG Chris means one of those
"everybody wins" kind of goals, Marcy would probably disagree. Games
traditionally have had winners and losers. With single-player games,
you've just added the option of having the loser being an inanimate
object; your PC or console.
Now, alot of people (perhaps mostly males) like to think in hierarchies.
Even in a "all win" type of game, there is the underlying "I have a
higher level than you" in the background. Not a clear win, but if you
are the highest level human player you know, that is one "sub-win" (as
with the sims series).
Perhaps our dominant, masculine days of gaming are numbered, as female
values find their way into the modern games, but as far as I can
remember, games has been about pitting people against each other and
pegging them in a hierarchy; from sports to computer games to chess.
--
(\[ Kent Dahl ]/)_ _~_ __[ http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~kentda/ ]___/~
))\_student_/(( \__d L b__/ NTNU - graduate engineering - 5. year )
( \__\_鮸鮛/__/ ) _)Industrial economics and technological management(
\____/_鯻\____/ (____engineering.discipline_=_Computer::Technology___)
Robert Tweed
news:3D5E1A65...@stud.ntnu.no...
[snip]
> Perhaps our dominant, masculine days of gaming are numbered, as female
> values find their way into the modern games, but as far as I can
> remember, games has been about pitting people against each other and
> pegging them in a hierarchy; from sports to computer games to chess.
Some interesting thoughts. One point I would add though is that computer
games, rather than "female values" have followed a trend away from opponent
defeating goals because they have been predominately single-player for a
good 20-30 years. That fact tends to remove the importance of winning as you
are essentially playing against yourself. Therefore the emphasis shifts
towards personal goals like getting a higer score, getting a faster time,
etc., although you are certainly right in saying that people, males
especially, will compare these with others; that's part of human nature.
- Robert