interesting economic EVE article

[ClymAngus]

It mentions Elite then goes on to comment on the economic psychopathology

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8545268.stm

[Diziet Sma]

Cool.. thanks, I know people who will find this article quite interesting..

[ClymAngus]

you know bit of a side note I'm seeing games get a little weird recently;

Heavy rain being a prime example, after initial critical aclaim it seems that a silent minority appear to be expressing quiet distain at the "Dance meat puppet dance" ethic behind it. That it is cleverly constructed into fooling the audience into thinking that the events are character life and death, when in actual fact, there are only very few places where you can actually get "killed".

Word has it that this game is the first to have an infinite monkey completion ratio of 1:1 .Basically you could headbutt the controller for the 9 hours it takes to play this "game" and you'd still stand a good chance of getting a favourable result and an infinite chance of getting a result and no chance of a game over.

For my money sandbox like games are the future a basic game that the users can embellish, like this one.

Also eve with it's odd insistance on actively rewarding psychopathic behaveure and mob mentality especially when aimed at other human beings. To be fair it's about the only thing thats keeping the world from repossessing Iceland.

[JensAyton]

That’s basically true of the RP parts of CRPGs in general, though. Conversation choices, even with “ethical” or “karma” implications, generally can’t stop you from reaching an ending, and if they can it’s considered a bug. They only affect which bits of the story you see. (Traditionally, of course, this is interleaved with combat bits based on some combination of direct player skill and stats/equipment.)

[Disembodied]

For my money sandbox like games are the future a basic game that the users can embellish, like this one.

I think you're right, ClymAngus. The whole idea of using a game as a mechanism for "storytelling" is, frankly, deeply flawed – if only because anything mediated by a computer has such a low number of possible interactions. It's also in my opinion simply not possible to create a satisfying, real, actual story with a multi-threaded narrative. Stories are, by their nature, enormously contrived affairs, and need careful steering if they're going to work out in the end: you can't manufacture multiple versions of them to order out of a cascading decision-tree*.

A much better – although trickier – option is, like you say, to create an interesting sandbox world and let people have their own adventures, and make their own stories, within it.

* well, you can, I suppose, in theory, but they won't be good stories.

[ClymAngus]

That’s basically true of the RP parts of CRPGs in general, though. Conversation choices, even with “ethical” or “karma” implications, generally can’t stop you from reaching an ending, and if they can it’s considered a bug. They only affect which bits of the story you see. (Traditionally, of course, this is interleaved with combat bits based on some combination of direct player skill and stats/equipment.)

Well we are on shifting sands here. It depends of course on what you like in a game.

Standard model
Lack of input = pretty well instant death and a game over or back to save.

New model
Lack of input = least satisfying conclusion.

Thinking about it, it's taking control AWAY from the player. Control over saving, control over what is needed to progress, understanding of the importance of any specific action, so all action takes on an urgent and important status.

Although I can see the appeal, at the end of the day I don't really want mind games, I want digial opium to ease my pain (maybe to come out feeling that I some how have more than when I started, CR EXP or the like). Some times I'm in a mood to have a bit of a build (oolite), but the one thing that does my head in is "Dance! Meat puppet!" games.

I fully realise that this is right up some peoples alley, and fair play to them. It just feels too much like hard work to me. I don't want to be reminded of the futility of playing computer games by having over 2/3rds of my actions counting for nought. If I wanted to torture myself like that, I'd play manic miner.

[JensAyton]

Stepping back a bit, I think you’re fundamentally wrong in this statement:

For my money sandbox like games are the future

This is the sort of flawed conclusion you reach when you think in either/or terms – which most people do most of the time. The actual future will be games distributed along a spectrum between wide open sandboxes and railroads, just like the present (as well as games that don’t fit on the scale, like arcade shooters with neither goal nor flexibility). Fashions will shift, some games will go too far in one way or another, and there will be times of great silliness, but there’s room for both.

Although it’s difficult, games can be goal-oriented and story-based while having a great deal of freedom (example: Fallout 2). They can also be wide open and extremely dull (example: the space stage of Spore). There is boundless space for varied types of games, and no reason why the world should settle on one type that appeals to everyone.

[Selezen]

Only Sith deal in absolutes...

[ClymAngus]

When taken at face value I can see how my comments without proper clarification could have generated such an out of character response. Allow me to becalm the waters, whilst firmly standing my ground and vehemently defending my position;

The one constant we have seem in gaming from the beginning is the love of the hack. Consoles and arcades locked this down a bit admittedly, but if the end user has any control over reverse-engineering the software (or hardware) then they will pop the hood and have a play. One could argue that this is an internet thing. But way before that, people were swapping codes in specialist computer magazines. The internet just made it easier.

Bottom line is it's happening and has been happening since little jimmy was bought his first k grade computer by Mummy and Daddy. Also railroad games present a challenge to the hacker, why hack a sand box? It's like trying to unscrew a screwdriver when you could just use it. People try and apply sand box rules to railroad games. For the challenge, for fun and to extend the life of a game. Also once cracked and torrented doesn't a railroad game become a sand box?

I hope this adequately explains my position, See? So much nicer when everyone remains civil.

Stepping back a bit, I think you’re fundamentally wrong in this statement:

For my money sandbox like games are the future

This is the sort of flawed conclusion you reach when you think in either/or terms – which most people do most of the time. The actual future will be games distributed along a spectrum between wide open sandboxes and railroads, just like the present (as well as games that don’t fit on the scale, like arcade shooters with neither goal nor flexibility). Fashions will shift, some games will go too far in one way or another, and there will be times of great silliness, but there’s room for both.

Although it’s difficult, games can be goal-oriented and story-based while having a great deal of freedom (example: Fallout 2). They can also be wide open and extremely dull (example: the space stage of Spore). There is boundless space for varied types of games, and no reason why the world should settle on one type that appeals to everyone.

Only Sith deal in absolutes...

I thought that was politicians?

[Commander Trigg]

Only Sith deal in absolutes...

That line always bugs me. Spoken by a Jedi, but isn't it an absolute itself?

[DaddyHoggy]

That line always bugs me.

You could apply that sentiment to almost all of Parts I, II and III

[Selezen]

That line always bugs me. Spoken by a Jedi, but isn't it an absolute itself?

Yeah, a lot of people have picked up on that. I use it here in a facetious mode...