Need some help thinking

[+Random Terrain]

I have been slowly forming game design ideals or personal standards since at least the early 1980s. Whether you agree with them or not, below are some of my game design ideals.

 

• Randomness and Replayability: Use controlled randomness whenever possible to keep a game fresh, so players are actually playing and not just memorizing patterns by dying and repeating the same moves as if they're learning dance steps.
  _
  
• No Mindless Enemies: [if the game has enemies] never have mindless enemies that jump back and forth or move up and down. Enemies should have some type of intelligence. They don't have to be geniuses, but they should at least have a spark of intelligence that makes them seem alive. [This is only about enemies (people, animals, or other creatures), not mindless random obstacles such as asteroids.]
  _
  
• Frustration and Irritation: Frustration was a highly successful villainous tactic for getting people hooked on games and squeezing as much money out of them as possible, but a fun game without frustration is healthier for gamers. Players might think they feel good after 'beating' a frustrating game, but there is a good chance that players will be more aggressive and irritable whether they win or lose.
  _
  
• Competition: We have been force-fed lies about our true nature and reshaped to please malicious overlords for millennia, so competition has become a nasty habit that's hard for most of us to kick.
  _
  
• Fear and Stress: Keeping players in a constant fight or flight state is bad for their health. There must be a way to make fun games that won't damage the health of players. These fun games should increase happiness, relieve stress, and help players feel more relaxed.
  

 

 

Those are some of the game design ideals that I would like to use to make fun games that are also good for people, but I don't remember playing any games that I can use as good examples. I feel like a tattered flag blowing in the wind. I might have played a game here or there that meets at least a couple of my requirements, but I don't remember them.

 

Besides not remembering any good examples, I also like certain types of fear-based games. I love it when you don't know what's going to pop up or when you're avoiding enemies, trying not to get caught. It goes against my ideals, but I like that type of game sometimes. The maze game I started working on a year or two ago is fear-based. Do I always stick with my ideals or do I give in sometimes and make the same old stuff that so many other people are making without caring about the health of players?

 

I need some help thinking.

Edited June 15, 2010 by Random Terrain

[+Gemintronic]

What's "healthy" will vary from personality to personality. Letting both the action player and strategy player "win" by allowing both play styles seems to be key. Grand Theft Auto Vice City is an example of a game that caters to action, mission based people and sandbox exploration type people.

 

Having a safety valve for various play mechanics is good too. In most RPGs you can defeat a boss the developer intended way or experiment with your own tactics or grind until the character is powerful enough. If one direction doesn't work you can always win by different means. God of War is a example of what NOT to do as you can mostly beat a boss on personal flair until forced to ape random key sequences. Those who cannot ape random key presses toss the game aside in frustration.

 

The ideals you put forth should be tempered with the wisdom that some players crave exactly the opposite! Some love liner gameplay. Some love flying Medusa Heads they can predict and outwit. Some thrive on fear, frustration and success. Cater to both crowds and provide a safety valve for game mechanics that lean too much either way.

 

Just a few thoughts

Edited June 14, 2010 by theloon

[jrok]

I think the problem you are having is twofold:

 

1) Some of the assumptions you are making are too reductionist. You are winnowing down too many common elements of "games" as we commonly know them, and some of your criteria is at odds with some of your other criteria. "No Mindless Enemies" and "No Competition", for example, would be at odds in most cases, considering that competition with other minds is a component part to basically all games throughout history. There is no such thing as non-competitive Chess, for instance.

 

2) It seems to me that all of what people consider to be the greatest games (whether video games or board games) betray at least one and usually several of your tenets. For instance, Asteroids contained plenty of "Mindless Enemies," "Competition" (in the form of High Scores, like all the great arcade games), "Fear and Stress" particularly in the instantaneous nature of death, and the sometimes hectic escapes and the unwieldiness of the Thrust button. Robotron, from what I recall, had plenty of "Mindless Enemies" as well, and also "Frustration and Irritation," and apart from the random reactions of some enemies to your movements, I do not recall there being much in the way of "Randomness" in the way the levels were begun (i.e, the same number of enemies and humans on level 5, every time). And I cannot think of a single board game whatsoever that didn't involve "Competition" of some sort. Perhaps certain role-playing games would fit this genre?

 

About the only game I can think of that meets all of this criteria was one I saw in science fiction. It was one of those episodes of Star Trek the Next Generation, and involved mentally putting ball into a randomly appearing hole over and over. Most people didn't understand the appeal, but got hooked on it anyway (because it turned out to be some sort of mind control device, if memory serves.) So it's possible that all of your criteria combined do not constitute a "game" necessarily, but rather some other kind of play-like activity.

 

Maybe you have to pare back the list a little, or allow for exceptions.

Edited June 14, 2010 by jrok

[+Random Terrain]

Thanks for the comments so far.

 

 

. . . considering that competition with other minds is a component part to basically all games throughout history.

Right, but I'm trying to break free from that mindset like these people:

 

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/oxfordtours/games/

 

http://www.familypastimes.com/together.html

 

http://www.childandnature.com/

 

http://www.ru.org/personal-development/cooperative-games-that-teach-solidarity.html

 

http://www.coopsports.com/purefun.shtml

 

http://www.playfair.com/

 

 

 

 

There is no such thing as non-competitive Chess, for instance.

With some thought, you could probably come up with a chess game where both players work toward a goal instead of fighting each other.

 

 

 

 

For instance, Asteroids contained plenty of "Mindless Enemies," . . .

I consider the asteroids to be obstacles, Sluggo fires at random, and Mr. Bill knows where you are and aims in your direction:

 

How to Win at Asteroids

 

Nothing wrong with 'stupid' random obstacles, but I'd rather have Sluggo try to ram you (within your general area). Mr. Bill is fine the way he is.

 

 

 

 

And I cannot think of a single board game whatsoever that didn't involve "Competition" of some sort.

There are plenty of them now:

 

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=cooperative+games

 

http://www.familypastimes.com/together.html

 

 

 

 

Maybe you have to pare back the list a little, or allow for exceptions.

I'm the type of person who stands on the hill in torn clothing, waving a tattered flag as I'm surrounded by the rotting corpses of my 'enemies' and companions, so paring back may not be an option, but I might be able to save my sanity by making occasional exceptions.

 

 

Thanks.

[+Gemintronic]

I just had some other thoughts too. Just my opinion - devils advocate and all that

 

A game without some risk is a sleeping pill. Anything lost during a game play is irritating, but without risk there is no sense of reward. No matter how smart the enemy is, if there is no risk (the fear, irritation, stress of losing) then it's a meaningless act to beat it. Expert control of risk in the form of fear, stress and irritation is key, but eliminating it deadens gameplay.

 

Only creating co-op games is fine but people will still compete. Double Dragon is an example where people will play through the entire game just to fight their co-op partner at the end. The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles games are co-op but 5 out of 6 kids I knew would compete over power-ups and health. Minimizing negative competition may be a worthy goal but reducing competition to zero may seep the life out of the game.

 

The concept of smart, lifelike enemies is also relative. Games like Symphony of the Night used basic patterns and careful placement of enemies in tandem with excellent animation and graphics to create "lifelike" monsters. At the same time I've seen monster spawn in modern MMOs that feel like they're using "IF MONSTERX > PLAYERX THEN MONSTERX = MONSTERX - 1". Intelligence in level design can beat out AI if used right. The "alive" feel of enemies is not just a question of AI is what I'm getting at.

[jrok]

Thanks for the comments so far.

 

 

. . . considering that competition with other minds is a component part to basically all games throughout history.

Right, but I'm trying to break free from that mindset///

 

Well, maybe it's a question of semantics, then. I think for most people, a "non-competitive game" is perhaps some sort of toy or exercise rather than a game. The semantics get even trickier, since some popular definitions of "games" actually define a "game" as separate from a "competition" by merit of the ability to actively interfere with or alter the performance of the other player or players. Meanwhile, a "competition" would involve things like foot races or figure skating, where there are rules and constraints, but no direct interaction. So that by that account, Galaga would be a high score "competition", while Pong would be a "game."

 

There are surely "games" that include elements of cooperation and that can be "won together." But there still must be active resistance of some form, otherwise the game contains no challenge. This is why there is some conflict with your "No Mindless Enemies" rule. According to your own tenets, you must be competing against something at least marginally intelligent for the game to be any fun. It seems like you are insisting that the intelligent, lifelike enemy *must* be artificial, and you force that distinction without making it clear why it's important. If I find a human mind equally or more challenging to play against than a mechanical one, why is the designation important? Especially in the digital era, where an online A.I. "bot" will have the same sensory representation as a human opponent? It just doesn't seem like a game-centric or fun-centric rule, but rather some moral code that you are assigning. Most people find competition fun!

 

 

There is no such thing as non-competitive Chess, for instance.

With some thought, you could probably come up with a chess game where both players work toward a goal instead of fighting each other.

 

No, I don't think so. That would be a puzzle, rather than a proper "game", I think. Chess puzzles are very popular, and I've occasionally tried to solve them collectively with my wife on a lazy Sunday morning. But these aren't "games." We are just squinting our eyes, making a guess and passing it back and forth. Of course, if one of us solves it first, there is usually a sly grin... because, while an unspoken competition, we all know whoever solves it first "won."

 

The most important element of a game is that it's an unproductive activity that is fun, and most of us find competition fun. It's fun to try and its fun to win. And while losing is sometimes no fun, the loss is simulated. And losing has its own merits, building character and stretching the mind to evolve new strategies. In a way, losing games and failing tasks probably develop the mind more quickly then any other activity. I'd almost go as far to say that "losing is good for you," since mental hygiene seems to be one of your goals here.

 

 

And I cannot think of a single board game whatsoever that didn't involve "Competition" of some sort.

There are plenty of them now:

 

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=cooperative+games

 

http://www.familypastimes.com/together.html

 

Perhaps they are dull? Also, how can these have intelligent enemies, as you suggested in your tenets? To my knowledge, there are no artificially intelligent dice or cards.

 

 

 

Maybe you have to pare back the list a little, or allow for exceptions.

I'm the type of person who stands on the hill in torn clothing, waving a tattered flag as I'm surrounded by the rotting corpses of my 'enemies' and companions, so paring back may not be an option, but I might be able to save my sanity by making occasional exceptions..

 

Quite a romantic image for someone who believes competition to rot the soul! Maybe to avoid all confusion, you can add one golden rule that automatically trumps all others "Above All Else, Be Thou Fun." That way, the large masses of us who find Competition fun, or Mindless Enemies a hoot, or enjoy being Frightened and Stressed until our nerve endings are deep fried all have an eject button. Or maybe just make a rule that says "A great game must be contain four out of five of these." I think it might be possible to find a few truly great games that qualify for four of them, and if you strike "no competition" from the group, many, many more.

 

Or don't. I mean, this is your baby. It just seems that if there were any great games that fit this rigid mold, we would have either heard of them or designed them ourselves.

Edited June 14, 2010 by jrok

[RevEng]

If you want to follow your own rule against competition, I think it should apply to AI characters too. Otherwise the game will appeal to (and reinforce) the competitive nature in the player that you feel is a lie.

 

With that wrinkle aside, the only games I can think of that live up to your ideals are: M.U.L.E. in 1-player mode, and 7 Cities of Gold.

 

I suspect Civilisation type games might qualify too, but I don't play those so I can't say for sure.

 

While I think some of your points are quite good - I keep your randomness rule in my mind often - I think some might best used as guiding principals rather than hard rules.

 

I also get the feeling that good game design is similar to comedy: one can do a thorough analysis on the nature of what makes things funny, but constructing a joke from the rules will lead to something spectacularly unfunny.

[jrok]

If you want to follow your own rule against competition, I think it should apply to AI characters too. Otherwise the game will appeal to (and reinforce) the competitive nature in the player that you feel is a lie.

 

This is exactly what I was thinking as well. In constructing a simulated foe, aren't we in fact trying to simulate a human enemy? That would seem to be a paradox in the ethos: humans are not actually competitive by nature (being forced into that mode by their reptiloid masters), but in constructing a lifelike opponent, the opponent must seek to defeat you or hinder your goal.

 

With that wrinkle aside, the only games I can think of that live up to your ideals are: M.U.L.E. in 1-player mode, and 7 Cities of Gold.

 

I suspect Civilisation type games might qualify too, but I don't play those so I can't say for sure.

 

It seems these would be out. Don't M.U.L.E and Civilization both contain computer A.I. foes? Aren't they still competitive games that gauge your performance, and end when one player "wins?"

 

I also get the feeling that good game design is similar to comedy: one can do a thorough analysis on the nature of what makes things funny, but constructing a joke from the rules will lead to something spectacularly unfunny.

 

I recall this point was made - in a very funny way - in a film I saw many years ago. Can't think of it now, though. But I agree in general. A rigid set of rules that include or exclude what games are "fun" almost seems to defeat the purpose. Not all of us find the same activities fun.

[jrok]

. . . considering that competition with other minds is a component part to basically all games throughout history.

 

Right, but I'm trying to break free from that mindset like these people:

 

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/oxfordtours/games/

 

http://www.familypastimes.com/together.html

 

http://www.childandnature.com/

 

http://www.ru.org/personal-development/cooperative-games-that-teach-solidarity.html

 

http://www.coopsports.com/purefun.shtml

 

http://www.playfair.com/

 

It's funny, I didn't really click through any of these, since you didn't really "sell" them to me. But I just randomly clicked the last link. It's a bit bizarre on several levels (seeming to be some sort of corporate team-building firm), but I found some of the text on this page to be interesting, describing some of their fun activities:

 

Have everyone bring in photos of their pets, and have a contest to guess which pet goes with which person.

"Bury a bone." Hide little gifts around the office for your co-workers to find.

Guess who made what. Anonymously put all the potluck dishes on a table. A large number is placed by each item. Pass out paper with numbers on it. Have everyone try to guess who made each dish. The one with the most correct answers is first in line to be served for the feast!

 

These sound like competitions to me. Although, to be fair, they also sound about as fun as unbuttered toast. I think I'd be mortified if these freaks showed up to my office.

Edited June 14, 2010 by jrok

[+Random Terrain]

Since I have to reply to more than one person, I'm going to do it in separate posts so my post won't be 5 miles long.

 

A game without some risk is a sleeping pill. Anything lost during a game play is irritating, but without risk there is no sense of reward. No matter how smart the enemy is, if there is no risk (the fear, irritation, stress of losing) then it's a meaningless act to beat it. Expert control of risk in the form of fear, stress and irritation is key, but eliminating it deadens gameplay.

You can't graft a new system onto an old one and expect them to intermingle successfully. You have to start as fresh as you can. Here's a related blog entry from IndieBird Games that I just found while Googling:

 

Punished by Rewards

I just finished reading a book called “Punished by Rewards” by Alfie Kohn. It was mentioned by Jonathan Blow in one of his talks, so I thought that it would be a good idea to check it out. The book deals with motivation – particularly the practice of motivating people with rewards.

 

If you take the time to think about it, this method of motivation is ubiquitous. Schools use grades to motivate students to learn. Parents reward children for behaving well and companies reward employees with bonus plans. Kohn’s book takes this practice head-on and argues convincingly against it.

 

Why are rewards a problem? It turns out the artificially rewarding people for doing things saps their intrinsic motivation for the task. Once people start telling themselves that they’re in it for the goodies, they don’t do the activity for its own sake.

 

The classical experiment that that measures this goes as follows. Two groups of subjects are tasked with figuring out how to attach a candle to the wall using a box of tacks. The correct solution is to take the tacks out of the box and to stick the box to the wall. The interesting thing is that the experimental group that’s rewarded for solving the problem does it slower than the group that isn’t rewarded.

 

The book lays out pretty convincing evidence that rewarding people for creative and enjoyable tasks is detrimental in the long term. Now, why is this relevant to game design?

 

 

Achievements

 

If you play games, you’re surely familiar with achievements. The basic idea is that the game recognises your actions in the game by giving you a special badge or some points. In light of the evidence presented by Kohn, I think that this is a very, very bad idea. We don’t want to move into a world where people are playing our games because we’re dangling something shiny in front of them.

 

 

Punishment in Games

 

Another thought that the book provoked was about punishment in games. We have all kinds of mechanisms to punish the player – health bars, lives, death and forcing them to replay parts of the game. These mechanics lend direction to the game, separating the good from the bad, but could they be a mistake? Is it possible to make a game that encourages exploration without slapping the player’s hands at every failure?

 

 

Personal Motivation

 

My last insight is less connected to game design and is more about game development. A lot of times during the latest game’s development I had to force myself to program parts of it. I wonder now if that was a mistake. It’s possible to internalise reward and punishment mechanisms – in effect punishing yourself for failure. If this is true, it’s equally possible to kill interest in something you love by forcing yourself to do it. I know that when I released the game, the joy of playing around with the bits and pieces suddenly came back. I felt free of a burden that I was dragging around for months.

 

It’s odd, but somehow I have to ensure that I make games without forcing myself to make games. I’m not quite sure how that’s possible, but I’m open to suggestions.

 

 

 

 

Only creating co-op games is fine but people will still compete.

Yep, it's a hard habit to break.

 

 

 

 

The "alive" feel of enemies is not just a question of AI is what I'm getting at.

I don't care how it's done. As long as they're smarter than most of the creatures in Pitfall 2, I'll be happy.

[+Random Terrain]

There are surely "games" that include elements of cooperation and that can be "won together." But there still must be active resistance of some form, otherwise the game contains no challenge. This is why there is some conflict with your "No Mindless Enemies" rule. According to your own tenets, you must be competing against something at least marginally intelligent for the game to be any fun. It seems like you are insisting that the intelligent, lifelike enemy *must* be artificial, and you force that distinction without making it clear why it's important. If I find a human mind equally or more challenging to play against than a mechanical one, why is the designation important? Especially in the digital era, where an online A.I. "bot" will have the same sensory representation as a human opponent? It just doesn't seem like a game-centric or fun-centric rule, but rather some moral code that you are assigning. Most people find competition fun!

You are assuming that I'm saying that all games must have enemies in them. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if a game has enemies, they should have some kind of intelligence. For example, in Adventure, the dragons don't bounce back and forth in front of a castle door, waiting for you to time your jump perfectly to make it in. The dragons 'see' you and will chase you. They are more 'alive' than people or creatures that act like mindless obstacles.

 

 

 

No, I don't think so. That would be a puzzle, rather than a proper "game", I think. Chess puzzles are very popular, and I've occasionally tried to solve them collectively with my wife on a lazy Sunday morning. But these aren't "games." We are just squinting our eyes, making a guess and passing it back and forth. Of course, if one of us solves it first, there is usually a sly grin... because, while an unspoken competition, we all know whoever solves it first "won."

I'm not talking about a puzzle to solve, but it doesn't matter. I'm not interested in making a new cooperative chess game.

 

 

 

 

The most important element of a game is that it's an unproductive activity that is fun, and most of us find competition fun. It's fun to try and its fun to win. And while losing is sometimes no fun, the loss is simulated. And losing has its own merits, building character and stretching the mind to evolve new strategies. In a way, losing games and failing tasks probably develop the mind more quickly then any other activity. I'd almost go as far to say that "losing is good for you," since mental hygiene seems to be one of your goals here.

Related quote:

 

It is said that our leisure activities no longer give us a break from the alienating qualities of the work we do; instead, they have come to resemble that work.

 

The chief reason our recreation is like our work is that it has become more competitive. Sports, for example, have always been competitive and never really qualified as play in the first place. Although it's not generally acknowledged, most definitions of play do seem to exclude competitive activities.

 

In an experiment with five-and six-year olds, Janice Nelson and her associates found that "success as well as failure in competition produced consistent increases in aggression, as compared with the effects of noncompetitive play," although failure made the children more aggressive. Another study discovered that boys who won a subsequent competition were more aggressive than those who failed. Even winning is not enough to eradicate the frustrating elements of competition. The hostile act of competition, on the playing field and in other contexts, for both participants and spectators, leads us to become more aggressive.

 

Any activity whose goal is victory cannot be play, if you are trying to win, you are not engaged in true play.

 

~Adapted from No Contest: The Case Against Competition by Alfie Kohn

 

 

 

 

 

Also, how can these have intelligent enemies, as you suggested in your tenets? To my knowledge, there are no artificially intelligent dice or cards.

I never said that all games need to have enemies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quite a romantic image for someone who believes competition to rot the soul!

Not really. I have my stupid causes and I'm usually the only one left standing after those on my side and those against me get all worn out. It's probably a side-effect of delicious Ass-Burgers.

 

 

 

 

Or don't. I mean, this is your baby. It just seems that if there were any great games that fit this rigid mold, we would have either heard of them or designed them ourselves.

If you don't think there's a problem, you're going to keep things the way they are.

[+Gemintronic]

Thanks for keeping me in the loop with this discussion ^_^

 

Well, I mostly concur with the first 2 points now (not that you asked me to - just that we both basically agree)

 

1. Randomness and Replayability

 

2. No Mindless Enemies

 

I think the last three could be boiled down to 2

 

Frustration and Irritation + Fear and Stress = Negative Rewards.

I don't think you can eliminate risk/reward BUT you can eliminate designing a game around it. When a player tries something new and fails they will be disappointed. If that disappointment is supplemented by the aggravation of in-game penalty that is designing within the risk/reward paradigm.

 

Competition

This is a hard one. The very act of progressing in a game is competition to me. It may not be my caveman instinct to bash male competitors but it IS my instinct to achieve for pleasure. I'm competing against myself to do better. Doesn't matter if it's a boss monster or placing a puzzle piece. I want to win. A game without negative rewards is fine (DOOM with god mode enabled) but a game without rewards defined is just art.

 

I think a more humble mantra would be to avoid carrot and stick rather than competition within and without. "Breaking" the player of competitive habits may be in itself forcing them into your paradigm instead of providing entertainment.

 

Maybe this would be a possible refinement of your rule set:

 

1. Randomness and re-playability built in. Pre-defined areas and storyline are OK but re-playability is a must. Randomness is key to achieving re-playability. Compare level 3 of Adventure to The Legend of Zelda. Zelda remains static and offers the same experience while Adventure can be enjoyed anew with different enemy and item placement.

 

2. Non-player Characters must feel "alive" and believable. NPC design should focus on intelligent interaction with the player. If an opponent the reaction should be stimulating. If a Bear than the player should feel it's a Bear without label needed.

 

3. No Negative Rewards. While disappointment cannot be fully vanquished using it as a tool can. Controlling game flow through player reprimand should be non-existent. Think of Grand Theft Auto with invincibility cheat turned on. The player may be disappointed by missing a motorcycle jump off a ramp but will not be punished (by dying) if the jump fails.

 

4. No Carrot-and-Stick. Pleasure should be self-motivated and achieved. Pre-defined goals are "someone else's" goals and thus "artificially sweet" to the player at best.

 

I kind of break down at Carrot and Stick Goals define a game. Competition is present even within yourself! What is Pac-Man without "eat all the pellets"? What is Super Mario Brothers without "I'll do better next time and save the Princess"?

[+Random Terrain]

If you want to follow your own rule against competition, I think it should apply to AI characters too. Otherwise the game will appeal to (and reinforce) the competitive nature in the player that you feel is a lie.

If the game has enemies, the player wouldn't really be competing, depending on the game. For example, if it's a football game or a new version of Combat with an AI opponent, that would be competition. If an AI dragon is chasing you, that's not competition, he's just hungry. If you're a hungry dragon too and you're both after the same food, that would be competition.

 

 

 

 

While I think some of your points are quite good - I keep your randomness rule in my mind often - I think some might best used as guiding principals rather than hard rules.

That's a good thing to remember. Since they are guidelines, I can feel less like I'm trapped in a cage of my own making.

 

 

 

 

I also get the feeling that good game design is similar to comedy: one can do a thorough analysis on the nature of what makes things funny, but constructing a joke from the rules will lead to something spectacularly unfunny.

I wonder if there's a programming equivalent to poop/pee/wiener/butt jokes?

[+Gemintronic]

I wonder if there's a programming equivalent to poop/pee/wiener/butt jokes?

 

Ever hear of Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball? Pretty sure that qualifies if we're talking "Game Design/Programming".

 

For a purist programming example you'd have to inspect the source code for every game I make

http://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=7706.0

[+Random Terrain]

. . . considering that competition with other minds is a component part to basically all games throughout history.

 

Right, but I'm trying to break free from that mindset like these people:

 

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/oxfordtours/games/

 

http://www.familypastimes.com/together.html

 

http://www.childandnature.com/

 

http://www.ru.org/personal-development/cooperative-games-that-teach-solidarity.html

 

http://www.coopsports.com/purefun.shtml

 

http://www.playfair.com/

 

It's funny, I didn't really click through any of these, since you didn't really "sell" them to me. But I just randomly clicked the last link.

I tried to put the links in order of importance, so the last link is the weakest. I only include it because they wrote a book long ago called Playfair that was filled with all kinds of cooperative games.

 

I didn't know I had to 'sell' the links. Does it have to be true? If not, how about this: the following links have free lesbian porn videos and coupons for free chicken.

 

 

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/oxfordtours/games/

These are games to change the world. They show that the alternative to competition, to striving to be the best, to winning at all costs can be enormous fun. That cooperation and sharing not only have some big words going for them like equality, fraternity and justice but a great little word too - fun!

 

 

http://www.familypastimes.com/together.html

Play as friends, not as enemies! Our games foster the spirit of co-operation. Players help each other climb a mountain, make a community, bring in the harvest, complete a space exploration... They are never against each other.

 

After all, the initial impulse to play a game is social; that is, we bring out a game because we want to do something together. How ironic then that in most games, we spend all our efforts trying to bankrupt someone, destroy their armies — in other words, to get rid of one another! We soon learn how to pick on the other person's weaknesses in order to win the game.

 

Let's take an example. A simple, common party game for socializing youngsters illustrates our point. Musical Chairs fosters aggression and elimination. Played co-operatively (see our Games Manual), you will see how hugging replaces pushing, how ability and strength are used to help rather than push out of the way.

 

People of different ages and abilities should be able to play side by side, each making their best contribution. In a co-operative game, someone young and little can play with others older and bigger and not worry about being wiped out. We are all there at the end of it.

 

Some cautions. We don't protect children from not making it to the summit or completing the space voyage. Our games are designed to offer realistic challenges. But the cultural habit of competing and confronting adversaries runs deep. Some players end up fighting the game itself. We suggest that you'll get better results learning how to get along with Time, Winter, Gravity, and Mountains rather than fighting them.

 

Aside from all these serious considerations, some people just want to share an enjoyable and challenging time with friends. We feel that co-operative games will prove to be that friendly form of fun.

 

The challenge. In sum, games are used in various settings and for various reasons, Socialization, entertainment, academic learning, character growth, etc. Whatever your objective, we invite you to realize them by co-operative means. Parents and teachers trying to teach children to share, be kind to living things, and help others out often are troubled by games and recreation programs which undermine these values. Our games provide the opportunity to experience sharing and caring behavior. We simply don't have enough of such experiences.

 

 

http://www.childandnature.com/wisdom.php

Was your child eliminated from the spelling bee and came home in tears? Have you heard of an athlete who took steroids to win? How did you feel when you were chosen last in a game because you were not as “good” as the others?

 

All of these events reflect our preoccupation with competition. This concept is deeply rooted in our nation’s education, sports, politics and even in families. Author Alfiew Kohn, in his well-researched book No Contest, The Case Against Competition writes how we are “encouraged to pit ourselves against one another and taught that competition is a prod to productivity, a builder of character, and an unavoidable part of human nature.... ”

 

It is ironic that we play games to be together yet spend our efforts trying to bankrupt someone, destroy their armies, conquer the world, etc.—all goals which create hostility and separate us...

 

- Jim Deacove

Owner of Family Pastimes Games

 

 

 

In the nineteenth century, the Darwinists and Social Darwinists talked about the competition in nature, the fight - "Nature, red in tooth and claw." In the twentieth century, ecologists have discovered that in the self-organization of ecosystems cooperation is actually much more important than competition.

 

- Fritjof Capra

Physicist, Systems Thinker and Author

 

 

Whenever we find rather similar animals living together in the wild, we do not think of competition by tooth and claw, we ask ourselves, instead, how competition is avoided. When we find many animals apparently sharing a food supply, we do not talk of struggles for survival; we watch to see by what trick the animals manage to be peaceful in their coexistence.

 

Peaceful coexistence, not struggle, is the rule in our Darwinian world. A perfectly fashioned individual of a Darwinian species is programmed for a specialised life to be spent for the most part safe from competition with neighbours of other kinds. Natural selectionis harsh only to the deviant aggressor who seeks to poach on the niche of another. The peaceful coexistence between species, which results from evolution by natural selection, has to be understood as an important fact in the workings of the great ecosystems around us. It is also, surely, one of the most heartening of the lessons of biology.

 

-Paul A. Colvinaux

Contemporary Environmental Scientist and Author of Why Big Fierce Animals Are Rare: An Ecologist’s Perspective

 

 

http://www.ru.org/personal-development/cooperative-games-that-teach-solidarity.html

The dominant message in the mass media, advertising and the educational system is individualistic and competitive: “First get an education, then get a job and make as much money as you can.” These institutions rarely convey a message of responsibility towards others in our human family. This materialistic attitude extends to sports, too, where the goal usually is “I win, you lose,” or perhaps, “I win, and it doesn't matter to me what happens to you.”

 

We need a new cooperative paradigm in our lives that promotes kindness, honesty, trust and teamwork. We need to overcome our fears—of failure, of looking bad, of getting hurt. And in the process, we need to lighten up, have fun, and realize that the best things in life are not for sale.

 

 

http://www.coopsports.com/purefun.shtml

Joe plays sport X. His friend asks him, “Hey Joe, are you going to enter the X tournament next week?”

 

“No,” he replies, “I don't play competitively, I just play for fun.”

 

Have you ever heard this snippet of a conversation before? I have heard it many times. The funny thing is, if you just heard the phrase, “I just play for fun” out of this context it would sound pretty obvious, because play activities are of course designed to be fun. Or are they? Does everyone find it fun to compete? Clearly the answer is no.

 

But it is not just the bigger, formal meets, races and tournaments people are avoiding. Many people avoid competitive sports altogether. Why? Are they lazy? Too busy to exercise? Don't like to be around other people? These may be the reasons for some people, but I think for many others the answer lies in the competitive nature of traditional sports.

 

In today's world, we spend most of our time competing. From an early age, we are told that only the best students get into the really good universities and that when we graduate, that only the best will land the job of their dreams. We use the phrase “get ahead” interchangeably with “succeed”. So when it comes time to play, it should not come as a surprise that many people choose not to participate in competitive sports. They simply need a break from the pressure and stress of competition. In their precious leisure time, they want to play with their friends as partners, not rivals.

 

Cooperative Sports allow you to play with other people and stay physically fit without spending your leisure time in competition. In sport, Pure Cooperation = Pure Fun!

[+Random Terrain]

Thanks for keeping me in the loop with this discussion ^_^

 

Well, I mostly concur with the first 2 points now (not that you asked me to - just that we both basically agree)

 

1. Randomness and Replayability

 

2. No Mindless Enemies

 

I think the last three could be boiled down to 2

 

Frustration and Irritation + Fear and Stress = Negative Rewards.

I don't think you can eliminate risk/reward BUT you can eliminate designing a game around it. When a player tries something new and fails they will be disappointed. If that disappointment is supplemented by the aggravation of in-game penalty that is designing within the risk/reward paradigm.

 

Competition

This is a hard one. The very act of progressing in a game is competition to me. It may not be my caveman instinct to bash male competitors but it IS my instinct to achieve for pleasure. I'm competing against myself to do better. Doesn't matter if it's a boss monster or placing a puzzle piece. I want to win. A game without negative rewards is fine (DOOM with god mode enabled) but a game without rewards defined is just art.

 

I think a more humble mantra would be to avoid carrot and stick rather than competition within and without. "Breaking" the player of competitive habits may be in itself forcing them into your paradigm instead of providing entertainment.

 

Maybe this would be a possible refinement of your rule set:

 

1. Randomness and re-playability built in. Pre-defined areas and storyline are OK but re-playability is a must. Randomness is key to achieving re-playability. Compare level 3 of Adventure to The Legend of Zelda. Zelda remains static and offers the same experience while Adventure can be enjoyed anew with different enemy and item placement.

 

2. Non-player Characters must feel "alive" and believable. NPC design should focus on intelligent interaction with the player. If an opponent the reaction should be stimulating. If a Bear than the player should feel it's a Bear without label needed.

 

3. No Negative Rewards. While disappointment cannot be fully vanquished using it as a tool can. Controlling game flow through player reprimand should be non-existent. Think of Grand Theft Auto with invincibility cheat turned on. The player may be disappointed by missing a motorcycle jump off a ramp but will not be punished (by dying) if the jump fails.

 

4. No Carrot-and-Stick. Pleasure should be self-motivated and achieved. Pre-defined goals are "someone else's" goals and thus "artificially sweet" to the player at best.

 

I kind of break down at Carrot and Stick Goals define a game. Competition is present even within yourself! What is Pac-Man without "eat all the pellets"? What is Super Mario Brothers without "I'll do better next time and save the Princess"?

That's some good stuff. We might be punished by rewards, but I love bonus items in games. Maybe the trick is to have bonus items without them being tied to how good the player is. Sometimes you simply find cool stuff, just like in real life. In Civilization Revolution, the parts I like the best are exploring the new randomly generated territory to find abundant resources and hunting for artifacts. I don't care for the fighting that comes later and I don't care who wins.

[jrok]

You are assuming that I'm saying that all games must have enemies in them. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if a game has enemies, they should have some kind of intelligence. For example, in Adventure, the dragons don't bounce back and forth in front of a castle door, waiting for you to time your jump perfectly to make it in. The dragons 'see' you and will chase you. They are more 'alive' than people or creatures that act like mindless obstacles.

 

Right. And part of being alive is competing with each other (for food, for mating rights, for scarce resources) and trying to hinder each others goals. A dragon who wants to eat me is engaged in the ultimate competition with me (who does not want to be eaten)

 

No, I don't think so. That would be a puzzle, rather than a proper "game", I think. Chess puzzles are very popular..."

I'm not talking about a puzzle to solve, but it doesn't matter. I'm not interested in making a new cooperative chess game.

 

Yes but you said you needed some help in thinking about game design, and I mentioned Chess, which great multitudes of people think of as one of the most well-designed games in the world. I am just trying to help you think.

 

The most important element of a game is that it's an unproductive activity that is fun, and most of us find competition fun. It's fun to try and its fun to win. And while losing is sometimes no fun, the loss is simulated. And losing has its own merits, building character and stretching the mind to evolve new strategies. In a way, losing games and failing tasks probably develop the mind more quickly then any other activity. I'd almost go as far to say that "losing is good for you," since mental hygiene seems to be one of your goals here.

Related quote:

 

It is said that our leisure activities no longer give us a break from the alienating qualities of the work we do; instead, they have come to resemble that work.

 

The chief reason our recreation is like our work is that it has become more competitive. Sports, for example, have always been competitive and never really qualified as play in the first place. Although it's not generally acknowledged, most definitions of play do seem to exclude competitive activities...

 

No offense, but this guy kind of sounds like a crackpot. He also wants to eliminate grading in education, and eliminate punishment from parenting. In fact, these are the subjects he writes about, which have nothing to do with games or game design, or anything remotely fun and enjoyable. Furthermore, writing about how homework stinks when you are a grown man reeks of the bitterest sour grapes. Get over it, Mr. Kohn.

 

Quite a romantic image for someone who believes competition to rot the soul!

Not really. I have my stupid causes and I'm usually the only one left standing after those on my side and those against me get all worn out. It's probably a side-effect of delicious Ass-Burgers.

 

Well, I'm just saying it's a startling bit of imagery from someone who seems to be advocating against competition in gaming: standing on a blood-stained hill, ringed by fallen enemies, banner streaming. Perhaps a more appropriate image would by "standing hand-in-hand with my helper buddies on a flat, nondescript plain, in a circular formation equidistant from some arbitrary point, murmuring soothing, non-judgmental affirmations to one another." Of course, knowing how most of us brainwashed, victory-addicted, capitalist pigdogs function, we would probably find a way to make a game out of that too... first one to fall asleep wins

 

But seriously, I guess mixing in some of these hippyish ideas about soft-edged cooperation isn't unworkable. It just sounds like a theory you would first need to prove by actually designing a game that was fun based on these principles. In other words, it's the ultimate "cart before the horse" to write down these guidelines before you discovered or invented a great game that conforms to them. It also seems to have the following built-in excuse: if people don't like the kind of games that result from these guidelines, it isn't because those games suck or because the theory is flawed, but rather because there is something broken about the people who don't like them. Usually not a good sign for a theory or set of guidelines.

 

-J

Edited June 15, 2010 by jrok

[jrok]

It's funny, I didn't really click through any of these, since you didn't really "sell" them to me. But I just randomly clicked the last link.

I tried to put the links in order of importance, so the last link is the weakest. I only include it because they wrote a book long ago called Playfair that was filled with all kinds of cooperative games.

 

I didn't know I had to 'sell' the links. Does it have to be true? If not, how about this: the following links have free lesbian porn videos and coupons for free chicken.

 

 

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/oxfordtours/games/

These are games to change the world. They show that the alternative to competition, to striving to be the best, to winning at all costs can be enormous fun. That cooperation and sharing not only have some big words going for them like equality, fraternity and justice but a great little word too - fun!

 

I guess that means this first one is the most relevant, but after a read-through I'm still puzzled as to who the quoted person is or what he/she does. Best I can surmise, he is somehow associated with the University of Birmingham and/or Oxford Walking Tours.

 

Besides, there's a little more to that quote after the word "fun!" RT:

 

Non-competitive games as an activity for adults seem to have developed with the hippie movement and the New Games organisation(sic) in the 1970's. They are an integral part of the Woodcraft Folk , a liberal youth movement which embraces most left leaning preoccupations: concern for the environment, anti-racist, non-sexist, co-operation above all. There are a number of books describing these games: the best of the bunch is produced by the Woodcraft folk themselves. Links to sites about some of these issues particularly in relation to children are listed here.

 

How's that for a healthy spoonful of indoctrination with your "fun!?"

 

*Here are some of this guy's favourite games:

My favourite games (listed here): if you are stuck for a sure-fire winner try one of these. Identify Tree (nature), Catch It-Drop It (lively); Touch Blue (lively), Peoples Ball (lively), Octopus (lively, our kids all time favourite), Mushroom (parachute), Sharks (parachute), Shoes, (other), I sit in the wood (name), Action name, (name), Cat and Mouse (parachute), Cat & Mouse in line grid (Tig), Dodge ball, (lively), Rooks and Ravens, (lively), Ball Circle, (lively), Letter, (lively), Huggy Bear, (cooperation), Spirals, (cooperation), Log Roll, (cooperation), Motor-cycle(cooperation).

 

Hey everybody, let's play "Identify Tree!" Then after that, let's eat our minimumally-survivable portion of vegan gruel compound, decorate our non-denominational holiday pole and then sing 60's protest songs until we pass out from protein deficiency!

 

Frankly, I'd prefer a lively round of "Artillery Duel." I love it when those two little soldier guys march out to carry off my enemy's crippled, smoldering carcass.

Edited June 15, 2010 by jrok

[+Random Terrain]

You are assuming that I'm saying that all games must have enemies in them. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if a game has enemies, they should have some kind of intelligence. For example, in Adventure, the dragons don't bounce back and forth in front of a castle door, waiting for you to time your jump perfectly to make it in. The dragons 'see' you and will chase you. They are more 'alive' than people or creatures that act like mindless obstacles.

 

Right. And part of being alive is competing with each other (for food, for mating rights, for scarce resources) and trying to hinder each others goals. A dragon who wants to eat me is engaged in the ultimate competition with me (who does not want to be eaten)

Sure, you can take the idea of competition to the extreme. If I fart and you didn't, that means I win. I farted first. You lost the farting competition, but if you held your breath first, you win that competition.

 

If you are going to have the death of enemies in your game, the 'competition' of "you die or I die and life is the prize we are both after" is unavoidable. A good reason to focus on non-violent games.

 

 

 

 

Yes but you said you needed some help in thinking about game design, and I mentioned Chess, which great multitudes of people think of as one of the most well-designed games in the world. I am just trying to help you think.

There are multitudes of of misguided people. For example, millions of people guzzle down soft drinks and stuff their faces with processed food and wonder why they always get sick. The problem can't be what they're drinking or eating since multitudes of people agree that that a diet of crud is harmless in 'moderation' (meaning three times a day, every day of the week).

 

There are two problems with chess that stand out to me:

 

1. As you would expect, the first thing is competition. If you want to focus on having fun without the vulgarities of competition, you'll want to move away from the old games and move on to alternatives that serve your new way of thinking. If you keep forgetting that all are one and that separation is an illusion, cooperative games can help you remember who you are and get you back on track.
   _
   
2. Great chess players supposedly play like some great Pac-Man players. They memorize a bunch of patterns instead of playing on the fly. When you're just regurgitating patterns, you're not playing.
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

No offense, but this guy kind of sounds like a crackpot. He also wants to eliminate grading in education, and eliminate punishment from parenting. In fact, these are the subjects he writes about, which have nothing to do with games or game design, or anything remotely fun and enjoyable. Furthermore, writing about how homework stinks when you are a grown man reeks of the bitterest sour grapes. Get over it, Mr. Kohn.

Yep, he's an unedumacated crazy man out to destroy the world:

 

http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2009/02/alfie-kohns-reply-to-daniel-willingham/

 

Tell me this, mister crazy man, have you ever heard of Occam's razor, critical thinking, logical fallacies, rules of inference, or the scientific method? I thought not! I fling poop at thee, mister crazy man. That's right, poop from my butt! Pooooooop!

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npZ4dkt4e4U&rel=0&fmt=18

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hS3m1ocWhhw&rel=0&fmt=18

 

 

The whole homework thing is getting way off topic, but whatever you think of him, his book No Contest: The Case Against Competition has some good stuff in it that can be applied to games.

 

 

 

 

Well, I'm just saying it's a startling bit of imagery from someone who seems to be advocating against competition in gaming: standing on a blood-stained hill, ringed by fallen enemies, banner streaming. Perhaps a more appropriate image would by "standing hand-in-hand with my helper buddies on a flat, nondescript plain, in a circular formation equidistant from some arbitrary point, murmuring soothing, non-judgmental affirmations to one another." Of course, knowing how most of us brainwashed, victory-addicted, capitalist pigdogs function, we would probably find a way to make a game out of that too... first one to fall asleep wins

Looks like you need some help. Imagine there is a mysterious and magical land called Vitalville. It stretches as far as the eye can see and the terrain is dotted with hills. Most people in Vitalville are more than happy to live low between the hills, but anyone can choose to stand on one of the many empty hills and wave a flag and say "Look at this. I think this is important." Some people will agree and join the person on the hill, taking turns waving the flag. Many others will choose to join the Ouq Sutats who are against flag wavers and they'll throw sticks and stones at anyone on the hill. The Ouq Sutats do not want the hills, they just don't want anyone else up there. Flag wavers on hills can affect public opinion, so they must be stopped before change can happen.

 

The people of Vitalville can have an extremely long lifespan, but there is a catch. They only live as long as they pursue their goals and causes with vitality. They are free to change their minds as often as they would like, but the new cause or goal must be pursued with equal vigor. The moment they douse their spark, give up, and lose their vitality, they die.

 

Given enough time, an enduring flag waver will be surrounded by the bodies of his or her 'enemies' and companions, not from war, because they gave up.

 

 

 

 

But seriously, I guess mixing in some of these hippyish ideas about soft-edged cooperation isn't unworkable. It just sounds like a theory you would first need to prove by actually designing a game that was fun based on these principles. In other words, it's the ultimate "cart before the horse" to write down these guidelines before you discovered or invented a great game that conforms to them.

I think you have it backwards. You need a theory to test. It's kind of like a mission statement. You don't know exactly what's going to happen with your company, but you can at least try to follow your mission statement.

 

 

 

 

It also seems to have the following built-in excuse: if people don't like the kind of games that result from these guidelines, it isn't because those games suck or because the theory is flawed, but rather because there is something broken about the people who don't like them. Usually not a good sign for a theory or set of guidelines.

I already think that most of us are broken and are in need of repair. With all of the crappy games out there that people gush over, I'm sure at least some people will like games based on these guidelines.

 

I don't have to be the only one who tries to make fun games based on at least some of these guidelines. The more people working on them, the better. Once the amorphous concept turns into a recognizable genre, it won't seem so foreign. "So that's what it's supposed to look like!"

 

 

 

 

Besides, there's a little more to that quote after the word "fun!" RT:

 

Non-competitive games as an activity for adults seem to have developed with the hippie movement and the New Games organisation(sic) in the 1970's. They are an integral part of the Woodcraft Folk , a liberal youth movement which embraces most left leaning preoccupations: concern for the environment, anti-racist, non-sexist, co-operation above all. There are a number of books describing these games: the best of the bunch is produced by the Woodcraft folk themselves. Links to sites about some of these issues particularly in relation to children are listed here.

 

How's that for a healthy spoonful of indoctrination with your "fun!?"

Yeah, screw that stuff! We want racism and sexism in our games! Those dirty hippies piss me off!

 

 

 

 

Hey everybody, let's play "Identify Tree!" Then after that, let's eat our minimumally-survivable portion of vegan gruel compound, decorate our non-denominational holiday pole and then sing 60's protest songs until we pass out from protein deficiency!

 

Frankly, I'd prefer a lively round of "Artillery Duel." I love it when those two little soldier guys march out to carry off my enemy's crippled, smoldering carcass.

Yep, you can't make or play cooperative games unless you are a crazy pot smoking hippy who gnaws on tree bark and is afraid of deodorant.

[Kripto]

Not to offend, but why are you over-analyzing gameplay mechanics in the abstract versus actually creating games and tweaking them until they feel "right"?

 

Seems like a bit of veiled procrastination to me...

[jrok]

Hey everybody, let's play "Identify Tree!" Then after that, let's eat our minimumally-survivable portion of vegan gruel compound, decorate our non-denominational holiday pole and then sing 60's protest songs until we pass out from protein deficiency!

 

Frankly, I'd prefer a lively round of "Artillery Duel." I love it when those two little soldier guys march out to carry off my enemy's crippled, smoldering carcass.

Yep, you can't make or play cooperative games unless you are a crazy pot smoking hippy who gnaws on tree bark and is afraid of deodorant.

 

Look, none of this is meant to be personal. Some of my best friends are dirty, pot-smoking hippies! But certainly, if social (or religious, or political) activism of any kind comes to the forefront of a game's design, chances are what you will wind up with isn't a "game" but rather a piece of preachy propaganda dressed up in game-like clothes. I have nothing specifically against the Bible, but have you ever see any of these Bible-themed games? Most of them are pathetically bad. Worse, they are usually given to kids who are already inundated with this stuff by their parents and other adults on a daily basis. So whether its the "Woodcraft Folk" vegans with their exciting "Identify Tree Game" up there or Wisdom Tree's "Bible Adventures", trying to teach morality through a video game feels unnecessary and stapled-on. Really, there doesn't appear to be much difference between "let's get rid of competition and winning in games" and Jack Thompson's crusade against sex and violence in video games. Personally I don't care if a game has violence, sex, Mormons or grown men hugging trees. It just ought to be fun and engaging.

 

Maybe that should be Rule #1 in any game designer's list of guidelines. Have people play your game, and let them tell you what is fun and what's not fun about it. There's no hard and fast formula for fun, because there are many different ways to have it.

 

As for "putting the cart before the horse," it's quite normal to have a testable theory before you have a product or application that demonstrates it. But to propose a theory requires some observable phenomenon, otherwise it's just conjecture. In this case, we should all be able to come up with a slew of terrific games that fit this mold you've cast. So far we've yet to come up with one... and that includes you, RT.

 

My advice to you is: invent that game! You can read all the theories on education and reptiloid conspiracies that you want, and swoon to the soothing, sultry sounds of Alfy "competition is terrible" Kohn on a daily basis. But Kohn can't tell any of us what is fun. As a game designer, perhaps you should try to design a game that meets these criteria, and also happens to be fun. Maybe it will be fun to large swathes of people, or maybe it will be only fun to a handful of them. Tastes differ that way - not everyone enjoys the same stuff. But niche games are still games, and can still attract an audience and make people happy.

 

But here's one thing I do know for sure: many hippies have money, and will shell it out for something that is fun and interesting, but still respects their worldview. Design the "Hippie Monopoly" or the "Hippie Counter-Strike," make a kajillion bucks, and then retire someplace warm and beautiful.

Edited June 15, 2010 by jrok

[RevEng]

Maybe RT has something here, and maybe he doesn't, but I applaud anyone that tries to do something new. In this case I'll applaud doubly loud, as RT stated reasons include not only the enjoyment of the player, but his/her well being as well.

 

Getting back to the rules, I'm not sure a gaming session can generate the kind of prolonged stress that may have adverse health effects.

 

Two of the most stress busting activities I can think of - comedy and sex - rely on a build up of tension followed by a release.

 

I think games require a similar build up of tension to be similarly cathartic.

[jrok]

Although I hesitate to call it a "game," one game-like activity that might fit these guidelines is "Whisper Down the Lane." When played well, I believe the goal is not to guess what the original phrase was, but rather to crack up the next person in the circle with your change.

 

It might be an interesting thought exercise to come up with a non-competitive game (i.e no gauging of performance via score, time, or zero-sum contest). I would be curious to see how it works out, although I have a suspicion that the end product would either be a toy, exercise or test of some sort rather than an actual game. Either that, or people would find a way to turn it into a competition regardless of how it was marketed, since humans (and animals, and, when you get right down to it, plants) all seem to be built that way.

 

For instance, I could imagine a puzzle game where players are given the ultimate goal of dividing a set number of blocks equally amongst themselves, with some interference from pseudo-random game mechanics. While disdaining competition on the surface (and really, being almost Bolshevik in its logic and presentation), competition would naturally develop at some point. Play Group A was able to "share" their blocks twice as quickly as Play Group B. National Block Sharing leagues coalesce across the globe, pitting the fastest sharers against each other. Stress follows, as Master Sharers practice their sharing techniques for the World Block Sharing Tournament.

 

Whenever there is a goal, competition will naturally arise. And if there's no goal, it's not a game. It's a toy. It could be a great and entertaining toy, but it's not a game.

Edited June 16, 2010 by jrok

[RevEng]

Anybody think that Passage or Gravitation follow the rules?

[yuppicide]

Wait a minute.. don't you have a pill available on your website to cure this?