What's the purpose of a reward? The type of reward is associated with the style of game.
Meta rewards like achievements are basically just milestones, that are a way of telling other 'I was here'.
Points and scoreboards reduce all the game context into numbers.
Rather than what I'm suggesting is that actions can be their own rewards, because you would have a story to tell of something interesting happening rather than just, "that last game I scored X".
My counter to your "simulation = work" argument is, well it's only work depending on how much of a chore the mechanics makes each tasks, and what each task requires.
Resource gathering is mostly considered at chore. Could be turned into a mini game, or just made automated (which within context of the game, could leave you vulnerable). Tell your person to chop wood, he'll do so as long as he has energy, a working axe and a place to store his wood. Resource depleted? He automatically finds the nearest tree, continues chopping. In the mean time you can be queuing up the next tasks.
Rather than having to program macros or using bots, the mechanics of the game should just allow this automation. Which means when it comes to crafting/ building/ battling you can take other and actually make those real time contextual decisions.
Like with those resources, do I keep them, craft some weapons for example, do I just sell or trade them. Do I share them. Do I craft swords, a arm everyone in my town, go to war against the neighbouring town.
it's not like a choose your own adventure when you can go back and make a different decision, the choices you make have to play out. What ever occurs after that is a tale of interest. That in itself is a reward. Having something interesting happen, that you can share the stories with others.
"Do you remember the time we crept into the other town and stole all their horses, they killed Larry because he couldn't keep up. Sara was still in there trying to pick-lock the chest in the town centre, we tried to go back in there to save her, we got there she had already escaped on her own, they caught us, held us ransom in return for the horses back, not knowing that their crown jewels had been stolen."
I don't know how interesting that sounds to everyone, but that's like an episode worth of action. An episode in a series of events that you and other people have to play out.
That's why we have Tabletop RPGs. Building a system that replicates that level of open-world-ness is not only unfeasible, it would inevitably be buggy and boring. Games with the level of choice of Skyrim are often buggy nightmares despite fun qualities. More than that is just worse.
And yes, this is dream game, I understand the idea. But I think abstraction is superior to simulation for gaming. Lots of people disagree with me, but different strokes for different folks.
It's not like a choose your own adventure when you can go back and make a different decision, the choices you make have to play out. What ever occurs after that is a tale of interest.
Whatever occurs after that is a tale of interest? Are you sure? Will it really be interesting?
You try to steal horses? Or crown jewels? This is the most interesting thing you can imagine happening in an open world game? And this is the most fun thing you can imagine happening in your dream game?
I'm with Axel on this one. Abstraction and GM's will always beat out simulation and "play long enough and something fun might turn up... maybe, sometime."
What abstraction lacks is the immersion of the virtual world.
You must be intentionally missing the point. A virtual world is immersive, yes, but that doesn't mean there can't be abstraction. In most games the moment of "winning" is an abstraction.
For example, in Counter Strike. To defuse the bomb you just hold a button. If you paid a bit for an item, you have to pres the button for a shorter time. To set the bomb you press the button too.
The abstraction of not having to play a mini-game to defuse the bomb doesn't lessen the immersion in the world. It's just a shortcut to what actually matters: in CS that means a person crouching over a bomb where an enemy can snipe them. It's THAT situation that creates the immersion, not any detailed simulation of bomb disposal.
Immersion as regards to tactics in your example. That only matters because the mechanics of planting the bomb is abstract, so you can focus on the tactics.
There's no reason why you can't have both.
What if the mini game for planting the bomb was to actually wire the bomb.
Skilled players can do it faster and don't necessarily have to watch their backs, while slower planters do. Having that small mini game in there creates an urgency to get it done, otherwise you'll die and lose.
Far more intense than just watching a countdown timer.
How can you gauge immersion anyway, and what does it take to be truly immersed (without resorting to be hooked into the Matrix).
There's a balance between abstractions and immersive elements that makes for good gameplay. I can't say what that balance, without having played the game first.
Okay, I was going to reply to your previous post with in one line, as it came across as so stupid. Like so:
What abstraction lacks is the immersion of the virtual world.
Bullshit.
For a start, a virtual world is an abstraction of the real world, no matter how closely it simulates the real world. But now you seem to have got my point:
A mini-game of bomb disposal is, in fact, still an abstraction. A real non-abstraction would be if, when you reach that point in a game of CS, you turn away from your computer and diffuse a REAL BOMB that's on the floor in your living room. It would be good if it didn't kill you if it exploded, of course, so it's probably best not to wire up real explosives.
Of course, at that point you're no longer playing a computer game.
Do you want to know something cool? I've played the real bomb disposal game! My father is a bit crazy, and when I was a kid he wired the whole house with trip wires and made a fucking crazy bomb. It was rigged to a simple banging-not-exploding device, but it was made with loads of switches and tricks and traps that, if deactivated in the right order, would result in no bang.
My girlfriend was held in the bedroom at the top of the house by her girlfriend, and our whole church youth group had to make it from the front door to the top of the house, kill the boyfriend, rescue my sister, and disarm the bomb. If you set of a trap on the way up you were "dead" and were blindfolded and tied to the person behind you (who was classed as injured).
It was an awesome evening of entertainment, though required a lot of setup. The bomb went off, and we all died, but only because my father didn't explain that the test wasn't really "over" and that we had to take the bomb outside, and the one who'd just cut the last wires set the bomb off as a joke.
The only abstraction was that the bomb nor the guns nor the traps were actually deadly. As a simulation, it was almost entirely 1-to-1.
But it wasn't open ended! It wasn't an open world! There was a single "winning" condition, and a clear goal to aim for. This is what made it exciting. This is what made it fun!
So again, tell me how a totally open simulated world can be fun without at least some boundaries, rules, guides or winning conditions. Or, to put it another way, tell me how it will have more fun than the real world in which you go to work a 9-5 job, then come home and make dinner.
The problem with that, is though that may have been a fun experience. Playing that game over an over would that not get boring?
The point of the game world is to have variety and diversity.
Yes a virtual world will always be an abstraction, but the immersion level is high enough to warrant time investment in exploration for example.
In a world with complex simulations happening in real time, time investment is sure to payoff to some interesting if not fun experiences. The aim is to have a new experience each time you play.
Rather than a game that's just purely a test of skill, where you're confined to very controlled environments. With rules/ goals/ objectives.
Minecraft essentially has no objectives, people seem to enjoy the freedom to do as they like.
The problem with that, is though that may have been a fun experience. Playing that game over an over would that not get boring?
You are the one who said you wouldn't be able to try the same thing over and over, and that each thing you did would have consequences. Unlike being able to try the same thing over and over (like in CS, which stays not-boring for a very long time BECAUSE of the abstraction), each of your decisions would have to play out in real time.
So I ask, wouldn't it get boring not being able to attempt the same thing over and over to do better than your last/best attempt?
In a world with complex simulations happening in real time, time investment is sure to payoff to some interesting if not fun experiences. The aim is to have a new experience each time you play.
You haven't yet explained how any of these experiences are going to be "interesting if not fun" for even the minority of players for the minority of the time, rather than never interesting for everyone.
If something interesting happens, how are you meant to tell other people how to go and enjoy the same thing? Are they allowed to go back in time and explore the same place at the same moment to be involved in the fun and interesting thing? No? Even that would be a step in the right direction, but your dream game wouldn't allow it.
Minecraft essentially has no objectives, people seem to enjoy the freedom to do as they like.
Minecraft has, essentially, two objectives:
1. Survive.
2. Create something awesome and share it.
The first leads to an immersive experience, not because the world is limitless but because it has so many hard limits. This leads to an interesting story that is created in the face of controlled adversity.
The second is fun because you are making something and sharing it. It's like Lego. It's less of a game and more of a fun creative exercise, but the lack of freedom is what makes it so compelling. The results are so impressive to the audience because then know you put each block in place in real time with no shortcuts.
Real freedom in creation is downloading Maya. Make something in a tool. What is it then? It's hard work, and no audience gives you any slack for the shoddy resolution. Making a bigger wireframe or render doesn't make anyone think you've done anything impressive, only that you entered in high numbers. In Minecraft there is no entering high numbers to make a bigger building, you have to fucking make it step by step, and the most interesting Minecraft videos show exactly that happening.
Again: resource and time restrictions make Minecraft fun and interesting, not the fact it's boundless and open.
Emergent gameplay is a thing. I look forward to your long answer in how you think this guarantees fun in a game, because so far you seem to lack a basic level of understanding about games (in thinking that Minecraft has essentially no objectives and players have the freedom to do what they like).
1. There's no guarantee anything will be fun. Everyone has their own taste, individuals will enjoy things for different reasons and to certain extents.
2. Minecraft doesn't have any set objectives. You choose whether to survive or create.
The times I've played Minecraft, I've just went in to screw around. That's because I'm not invested in that game. So I can afford to screw around for a few minutes, because that's how I personally enjoy the game. For players who are more invested in the game, they'll have to survive because the nature of the game forces you to. As does my game.
However like I said there's no objectives in the sense that you're prompted by the system "you must survive". Players are just responding to what's happening in the world.
The tactics the emerge from that response is where there things get interesting, because that's where player creative, co-operating with other players will matter.
In Minecraft surviving is pretty straight forward since the simulation is quite predictable, which give players the freedom to create and explore.
As I propose in my game, the simulations will be a little bit more complex and unpredictable, which inherently makes all the tactics of survival, coop and competition dynamic and constantly changing.
How you would survive a volcano erupting isn't the same way you would survive against a guild of thieves for example.
If you're in the middle of a fight with someone, and the ground starts to shake and split open, do you turn and run/ finish the fight/ get trapped in a hole in the ground and drag the other guy down with you...
You won't even have those choices without having the simulating pressure building up in the volcano, PvP mechanics, Physics etc. You need to have alot of simulation happening, and imperfect information. You don't know, as a player, when there's going to be an earthquake, and say you could predict an earthquake within the game, you probably couldn't predict where the ground is going to fall.
The unpredictability will force players to make snap decisions, in my experience that's always lead to interesting scenarios.
The point is choice only means something if there's a consequence. So there to be a consequence, there needs to be mechanics to support the choice.
In the Sims, if you wanted to, you can just watch your family of Sims all starve to death feeding just one. Pretending to be some kind of evil overlord who just wants his Sims to suffer.
The mechanics allow for you to do that. It's either feed/ don't feed.
If that's how you choose to play the game, that may be enjoyable for someone. It may also be interesting to watch, I don't know.
"If something interesting happens, how are you meant to tell other people how to go and enjoy the same thing? "
Why would you tell anyone how to do it? You'd just show them. Video capture>Youtube = fun times
Machinima?
How many game videos, gifs and memes have been made. I'm sure you've enjoyed watching them without wanting to replicate the scenario. And that's the point, you may have a unique experience, I don't exactly know what will make that experience unique, it will just have to happen as a result of a combination of things happening.
If you want to play, you'll be playing for yourself, having your own unique experience. There's no telling what the scenario will be when you play.
That experience is likely to be unique to you, and any players involved. I'd imagine, for those really special moments (that you can't predict), you'll want to have a record of it. Games have had inbuilt recording tools for a reason.
People will see for themselves whether, like anything, if what they see is interesting or not.
But now, by any definition of the word "game" I can think of, you've not created a game. You've created a digital movie studio where you don't control when the special effects happen, or if they happen.
Or, to put it another way, if this is a game, then real life is a game. What I'm doing now is a game. I can record it with my camera and show it to you. Right? I just had an adventure navigating to many closed supermarkets on a Sunday in France, while drunk. Is me telling you I had a fun random experience enough to make it a game?
Noun A form of play or sport, esp. a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck.
Adjective Eager and willing to do something new or challenging: "they were game for anything".
Oh boy.
The more you define the meaning, the more you're specifying the utility.
In my game, you can still play to win. Depends what you define as winning, within the context of the game.
Okay, then I ask you yet again... how do you go about winning? If the world is open, and anything is allowed, how do you know when you've done enough? How do you know when you've achieved something worth achieving?
And if the answer is "Once you've had enough fun" then you've not defined anything. All you're saying is that you want a thing to exist that allows you to do something. That something hasn't yet been defined either, just that, hopefully, it'll be "interesting if not fun".
If I do something cool in your game, will I be rewarded for it in the game, or will I have to look outside the game for any reward?
If you want rewards, let's see: killing players for their stuff, finding rare items/ resources, earning recognition for defeating the last known dragon
Fun is something that is intrinsically entertaining or uplifting. As in, when you do it, it brings a smile to your face. Angry Birds is fun. It might not be a complex game, but it is fun.
Watching stuff blow up is fun. Making stuff blow up is more fun.
"Killing a player for their stuff" is a mechanic. If, in the game, you could come up with new ways to kill players, then it might be rewarding. If killing players is fun, then that's good too. Nothing you have said about this game makes me think it will be fun at all because, literally, there is no reason to do except for loot. It sounds like grinding to me.
"Finding rare items" should be a byproduct of searching for more important stuff, like something to further a story or bring you closer to a goal. By itself it is merely mining or grinding.
"Earning recognition" is exactly the type of outside-the-game reward that I specifically mentioned makes it not-a-game. If there is no way to objectively measure progress or achievement within the bounds of the game itself (for example getting a score, lasting an amount of time, winning percentage, winning a tournament) then it is very, very difficult to consider it a game. It simply falls outside of what a game is.
I would consider something rewarding if:
1. It's fun and I have a *sense* of achievement.
2. I actually achieve something measurable.
If a reward is entirely subjective, something that a player makes up him or herself, then it literally isn't a reward. It isn't anything. The only way for something to be rewarding if it is something aimed for intentionally, or if not, when it happens it has to be clear that milestone has been reached. That's what the *sense* of achievement means above. It might not be an explicit reward, but when a line is crossed, the player feels different.
Absolutely. These types of games appeal to very specific groups of people: People who know how to create goals but have limited means to fulfill them. Therefore, they want an open-ended fantasy where they just can do anything without consequence.
I get the appeal, but I do not have that kind of time or drive. I want a game to deliver me an experience that it creates, because THAT is good game design. Anything else relies too heavily on the player. It's why I get bored of Minecraft: I can't just make things, forever, with no end. Eventually I'm done. I enjoy when people use Minecraft to make other games, like a Four-square combat game or something, but...Yeah.
Anything else relies too heavily on the player. It's why I get bored of Minecraft
I agree relying on other players is essentially unreliable. Hopefully the desire to survive, will force players to cooperate, compete and create. I don't know how much it takes to keep a game world alive and populated with invested players.
The idea of having a dynamically changing world, and emergent gameplay, is something that appeals to me, because essentially it's a forever changing game.
It's very easy to get bored when things don't change.
Anything else relies too heavily on the player. It's why I get bored of Minecraft
I agree relying on other players is essentially unreliable.
No, Axel isn't saying that. He isn't saying you, as a player, depend on other players. He's saying the game, as a non-game, depends on what the player him or herself brings to the game.
It's like saying "That party was awesome! Me and my friends hung out all night and chatted!" It wasn't the party that was awesome, but your group of friends is fun.
Or like saying "That diner was great! I took my own food and had a picnic right there at the table!"
What I don't understand is what your dream game brings in. It sounds like it brings in a lot of work, but without much guarantee of fun. A dynamically changing world sounds interesting, but emergent game play requires set of rules and lots of people interacting with those rules.
Yes. Like I said, the most fun things in Minecraft for me are when we set up some rules and play a game. Minecraft free play and exploration gets boring after a few hours, at least to me.
I mentioned the four-square game before. This is where four identical squares of world with hidden items and resources are separated by a giant unbreakable wall of sand, making each of the four squares separate. Players start in one, often grouped into groups of 2-4, and begin with nothing. A timer is set (15-60 minutes), and after that time period, the sand wall falls and it's PvP, last team standing. This is a simple idea, but it takes Minecraft's fun mechanics and gives them a purpose: You're rushing to find things to survive because you know you want to have them to beat the other teams.
To segue back to something on-topic: Another idea for a dream game is a Minecraft style game where you have to gather items and build from nothing, but where the enemies are gathering too, like in Strategy games. You're running around in third-person, gathering metals and oils and the like to build weapons and vehicles to fight some computer (or player?) controlled enemy. You fight for resources, pipe them back to home-base, and use them to build tanks, boats, airships, guns, etc. With these, you push out further and find more, trying to get to the enemy base and take it.
Comments
Meta rewards like achievements are basically just milestones, that are a way of telling other 'I was here'.
Points and scoreboards reduce all the game context into numbers.
Rather than what I'm suggesting is that actions can be their own rewards, because you would have a story to tell of something interesting happening rather than just, "that last game I scored X".
My counter to your "simulation = work" argument is, well it's only work depending on how much of a chore the mechanics makes each tasks, and what each task requires.
Resource gathering is mostly considered at chore. Could be turned into a mini game, or just made automated (which within context of the game, could leave you vulnerable). Tell your person to chop wood, he'll do so as long as he has energy, a working axe and a place to store his wood. Resource depleted? He automatically finds the nearest tree, continues chopping. In the mean time you can be queuing up the next tasks.
Rather than having to program macros or using bots, the mechanics of the game should just allow this automation. Which means when it comes to crafting/ building/ battling you can take other and actually make those real time contextual decisions.
Like with those resources, do I keep them, craft some weapons for example, do I just sell or trade them. Do I share them. Do I craft swords, a arm everyone in my town, go to war against the neighbouring town.
it's not like a choose your own adventure when you can go back and make a different decision, the choices you make have to play out. What ever occurs after that is a tale of interest. That in itself is a reward. Having something interesting happen, that you can share the stories with others.
"Do you remember the time we crept into the other town and stole all their horses, they killed Larry because he couldn't keep up. Sara was still in there trying to pick-lock the chest in the town centre, we tried to go back in there to save her, we got there she had already escaped on her own, they caught us, held us ransom in return for the horses back, not knowing that their crown jewels had been stolen."
I don't know how interesting that sounds to everyone, but that's like an episode worth of action. An episode in a series of events that you and other people have to play out.
Where it goes and how it develops, who knows.
And yes, this is dream game, I understand the idea. But I think abstraction is superior to simulation for gaming. Lots of people disagree with me, but different strokes for different folks.
You try to steal horses? Or crown jewels? This is the most interesting thing you can imagine happening in an open world game? And this is the most fun thing you can imagine happening in your dream game?
I'm with Axel on this one. Abstraction and GM's will always beat out simulation and "play long enough and something fun might turn up... maybe, sometime."
For example, in Counter Strike. To defuse the bomb you just hold a button. If you paid a bit for an item, you have to pres the button for a shorter time. To set the bomb you press the button too.
The abstraction of not having to play a mini-game to defuse the bomb doesn't lessen the immersion in the world. It's just a shortcut to what actually matters: in CS that means a person crouching over a bomb where an enemy can snipe them. It's THAT situation that creates the immersion, not any detailed simulation of bomb disposal.
There's no reason why you can't have both.
What if the mini game for planting the bomb was to actually wire the bomb.
Skilled players can do it faster and don't necessarily have to watch their backs, while slower planters do. Having that small mini game in there creates an urgency to get it done, otherwise you'll die and lose.
Far more intense than just watching a countdown timer.
How can you gauge immersion anyway, and what does it take to be truly immersed (without resorting to be hooked into the Matrix).
There's a balance between abstractions and immersive elements that makes for good gameplay. I can't say what that balance, without having played the game first.
For a start, a virtual world is an abstraction of the real world, no matter how closely it simulates the real world. But now you seem to have got my point:
A mini-game of bomb disposal is, in fact, still an abstraction. A real non-abstraction would be if, when you reach that point in a game of CS, you turn away from your computer and diffuse a REAL BOMB that's on the floor in your living room. It would be good if it didn't kill you if it exploded, of course, so it's probably best not to wire up real explosives.
Of course, at that point you're no longer playing a computer game.
Do you want to know something cool? I've played the real bomb disposal game! My father is a bit crazy, and when I was a kid he wired the whole house with trip wires and made a fucking crazy bomb. It was rigged to a simple banging-not-exploding device, but it was made with loads of switches and tricks and traps that, if deactivated in the right order, would result in no bang.
My girlfriend was held in the bedroom at the top of the house by her girlfriend, and our whole church youth group had to make it from the front door to the top of the house, kill the boyfriend, rescue my sister, and disarm the bomb. If you set of a trap on the way up you were "dead" and were blindfolded and tied to the person behind you (who was classed as injured).
It was an awesome evening of entertainment, though required a lot of setup. The bomb went off, and we all died, but only because my father didn't explain that the test wasn't really "over" and that we had to take the bomb outside, and the one who'd just cut the last wires set the bomb off as a joke.
The only abstraction was that the bomb nor the guns nor the traps were actually deadly. As a simulation, it was almost entirely 1-to-1.
But it wasn't open ended! It wasn't an open world! There was a single "winning" condition, and a clear goal to aim for. This is what made it exciting. This is what made it fun!
So again, tell me how a totally open simulated world can be fun without at least some boundaries, rules, guides or winning conditions. Or, to put it another way, tell me how it will have more fun than the real world in which you go to work a 9-5 job, then come home and make dinner.
The point of the game world is to have variety and diversity.
Yes a virtual world will always be an abstraction, but the immersion level is high enough to warrant time investment in exploration for example.
In a world with complex simulations happening in real time, time investment is sure to payoff to some interesting if not fun experiences. The aim is to have a new experience each time you play.
Rather than a game that's just purely a test of skill, where you're confined to very controlled environments. With rules/ goals/ objectives.
Minecraft essentially has no objectives, people seem to enjoy the freedom to do as they like.
So I ask, wouldn't it get boring not being able to attempt the same thing over and over to do better than your last/best attempt? You haven't yet explained how any of these experiences are going to be "interesting if not fun" for even the minority of players for the minority of the time, rather than never interesting for everyone.
If something interesting happens, how are you meant to tell other people how to go and enjoy the same thing? Are they allowed to go back in time and explore the same place at the same moment to be involved in the fun and interesting thing? No? Even that would be a step in the right direction, but your dream game wouldn't allow it. Minecraft has, essentially, two objectives:
1. Survive.
2. Create something awesome and share it.
The first leads to an immersive experience, not because the world is limitless but because it has so many hard limits. This leads to an interesting story that is created in the face of controlled adversity.
The second is fun because you are making something and sharing it. It's like Lego. It's less of a game and more of a fun creative exercise, but the lack of freedom is what makes it so compelling. The results are so impressive to the audience because then know you put each block in place in real time with no shortcuts.
Real freedom in creation is downloading Maya. Make something in a tool. What is it then? It's hard work, and no audience gives you any slack for the shoddy resolution. Making a bigger wireframe or render doesn't make anyone think you've done anything impressive, only that you entered in high numbers. In Minecraft there is no entering high numbers to make a bigger building, you have to fucking make it step by step, and the most interesting Minecraft videos show exactly that happening.
Again: resource and time restrictions make Minecraft fun and interesting, not the fact it's boundless and open.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_gameplay
2. Minecraft doesn't have any set objectives. You choose whether to survive or create.
The times I've played Minecraft, I've just went in to screw around. That's because I'm not invested in that game. So I can afford to screw around for a few minutes, because that's how I personally enjoy the game. For players who are more invested in the game, they'll have to survive because the nature of the game forces you to. As does my game.
However like I said there's no objectives in the sense that you're prompted by the system "you must survive". Players are just responding to what's happening in the world.
The tactics the emerge from that response is where there things get interesting, because that's where player creative, co-operating with other players will matter.
In Minecraft surviving is pretty straight forward since the simulation is quite predictable, which give players the freedom to create and explore.
As I propose in my game, the simulations will be a little bit more complex and unpredictable, which inherently makes all the tactics of survival, coop and competition dynamic and constantly changing.
How you would survive a volcano erupting isn't the same way you would survive against a guild of thieves for example.
If you're in the middle of a fight with someone, and the ground starts to shake and split open, do you turn and run/ finish the fight/ get trapped in a hole in the ground and drag the other guy down with you...
You won't even have those choices without having the simulating pressure building up in the volcano, PvP mechanics, Physics etc. You need to have alot of simulation happening, and imperfect information. You don't know, as a player, when there's going to be an earthquake, and say you could predict an earthquake within the game, you probably couldn't predict where the ground is going to fall.
The unpredictability will force players to make snap decisions, in my experience that's always lead to interesting scenarios.
The point is choice only means something if there's a consequence. So there to be a consequence, there needs to be mechanics to support the choice.
In the Sims, if you wanted to, you can just watch your family of Sims all starve to death feeding just one. Pretending to be some kind of evil overlord who just wants his Sims to suffer.
The mechanics allow for you to do that. It's either feed/ don't feed.
If that's how you choose to play the game, that may be enjoyable for someone. It may also be interesting to watch, I don't know.
"If something interesting happens, how are you meant to tell other people how to go and enjoy the same thing? "
Why would you tell anyone how to do it? You'd just show them. Video capture>Youtube = fun times
Machinima?
How many game videos, gifs and memes have been made. I'm sure you've enjoyed watching them without wanting to replicate the scenario. And that's the point, you may have a unique experience, I don't exactly know what will make that experience unique, it will just have to happen as a result of a combination of things happening.
If you want to play, you'll be playing for yourself, having your own unique experience. There's no telling what the scenario will be when you play.
That experience is likely to be unique to you, and any players involved. I'd imagine, for those really special moments (that you can't predict), you'll want to have a record of it. Games have had inbuilt recording tools for a reason.
People will see for themselves whether, like anything, if what they see is interesting or not.
Or, to put it another way, if this is a game, then real life is a game. What I'm doing now is a game. I can record it with my camera and show it to you. Right? I just had an adventure navigating to many closed supermarkets on a Sunday in France, while drunk. Is me telling you I had a fun random experience enough to make it a game?
/gām/
Noun
A form of play or sport, esp. a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck.
Adjective
Eager and willing to do something new or challenging: "they were game for anything".
In my game, you can still play to win. Depends what you define as winning, within the context of the game.
And if the answer is "Once you've had enough fun" then you've not defined anything. All you're saying is that you want a thing to exist that allows you to do something. That something hasn't yet been defined either, just that, hopefully, it'll be "interesting if not fun".
If I do something cool in your game, will I be rewarded for it in the game, or will I have to look outside the game for any reward?
If you want rewards, let's see: killing players for their stuff, finding rare items/ resources, earning recognition for defeating the last known dragon
What would you consider a reward?
Watching stuff blow up is fun. Making stuff blow up is more fun.
"Killing a player for their stuff" is a mechanic. If, in the game, you could come up with new ways to kill players, then it might be rewarding. If killing players is fun, then that's good too. Nothing you have said about this game makes me think it will be fun at all because, literally, there is no reason to do except for loot. It sounds like grinding to me.
"Finding rare items" should be a byproduct of searching for more important stuff, like something to further a story or bring you closer to a goal. By itself it is merely mining or grinding.
"Earning recognition" is exactly the type of outside-the-game reward that I specifically mentioned makes it not-a-game. If there is no way to objectively measure progress or achievement within the bounds of the game itself (for example getting a score, lasting an amount of time, winning percentage, winning a tournament) then it is very, very difficult to consider it a game. It simply falls outside of what a game is.
I would consider something rewarding if:
1. It's fun and I have a *sense* of achievement.
2. I actually achieve something measurable.
If a reward is entirely subjective, something that a player makes up him or herself, then it literally isn't a reward. It isn't anything. The only way for something to be rewarding if it is something aimed for intentionally, or if not, when it happens it has to be clear that milestone has been reached. That's what the *sense* of achievement means above. It might not be an explicit reward, but when a line is crossed, the player feels different.
I get the appeal, but I do not have that kind of time or drive. I want a game to deliver me an experience that it creates, because THAT is good game design. Anything else relies too heavily on the player. It's why I get bored of Minecraft: I can't just make things, forever, with no end. Eventually I'm done. I enjoy when people use Minecraft to make other games, like a Four-square combat game or something, but...Yeah.
The idea of having a dynamically changing world, and emergent gameplay, is something that appeals to me, because essentially it's a forever changing game.
It's very easy to get bored when things don't change.
It's like saying "That party was awesome! Me and my friends hung out all night and chatted!" It wasn't the party that was awesome, but your group of friends is fun.
Or like saying "That diner was great! I took my own food and had a picnic right there at the table!"
What I don't understand is what your dream game brings in. It sounds like it brings in a lot of work, but without much guarantee of fun. A dynamically changing world sounds interesting, but emergent game play requires set of rules and lots of people interacting with those rules.
I mentioned the four-square game before. This is where four identical squares of world with hidden items and resources are separated by a giant unbreakable wall of sand, making each of the four squares separate. Players start in one, often grouped into groups of 2-4, and begin with nothing. A timer is set (15-60 minutes), and after that time period, the sand wall falls and it's PvP, last team standing. This is a simple idea, but it takes Minecraft's fun mechanics and gives them a purpose: You're rushing to find things to survive because you know you want to have them to beat the other teams.
To segue back to something on-topic:
Another idea for a dream game is a Minecraft style game where you have to gather items and build from nothing, but where the enemies are gathering too, like in Strategy games. You're running around in third-person, gathering metals and oils and the like to build weapons and vehicles to fight some computer (or player?) controlled enemy. You fight for resources, pipe them back to home-base, and use them to build tanks, boats, airships, guns, etc.
With these, you push out further and find more, trying to get to the enemy base and take it.
The best dream game.