Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Korgoth" data-source="post: 4260476" data-attributes="member: 49613">To clarify: I was under the impression that you do in fact recognize that a game is a framework of choice (another way to talk about "forcing", I suppose), and that the choices should be potentially interesting.  Rather than pushing a certain sort of game design agenda, I was trying to tease out whether you placed this aspect of design under one of your 3 listed basic goals or if it merited adding a 4th basic goal to your list.  Part of it is not knowing what point #3, "Fulfill the expectation of excitement" actually means.  That phrase could be replete with meaning and I just need to be clued in on that meaning, or perhaps the statement is overly vague and requires elaboration so that we can all know what we're talking about.Going back to your earlier post, I certainly don't mean to imply authorial or collaborative stances.  Perish the thought!  I'm just trying to get clear on the list of basic goals and their implications.  Though I don't agree that an interesting choice implies an incorrect choice (though there may be such things; I just don't think it's implied).  But again, perhaps that's clear from my rejection of the authorial stance.  To take the example of Settlers once again, at the setup you have some interesting choices to make.  Not every player has the same interesting choices because of the way the setup rotation works.  But you get to choose early on what type of strategy you're going to use to fulfill the established victory condition (you can always make up your own, I suppose, like "Attain Longest Road at all costs if it costs me the game"... but just to stick with the established goal for a second); "How am I going to win this game?"  That's an interesting choice.  You may have to change your plan at some juncture.  Another interesting choice, and so on.  The choices are interesting because they involve weighing various outcomes, opponents and complexities and sacrificing one thing to prioritize another.  None of which implies that a given gamer is interested in Settlers just because it has choices which are interesting.Getting back to Monopoly: games have to strike a balance.  There's no one game for all people, most likely.  Some people are interested in the relative performance of the co-axial machinegun on a Panther A... for those people, Advanced Squad Leader warrants consideration.  Other people don't even know a Panther from a T-34/85.  For them, not so much.  ASL leans very heavily on technical minutiae.  Monopoly does not... it's a very casual game.  When you land on an unbought property, you only need to think about a few things: how much money do I have, do I need this for a monopoly, does my opponent need it for a monopoly, can I use this property in the future for any reason, can my opponent use it in the future for any reason, etc.  Not really that much to weigh, all things considered, and the opportunity for those decisions is very much governed by luck.  On the balance, Monopoly tilts strongly toward the casual game (though it's nothing like Candy Land, which has virtually no player choice... but it's as much a pedagogical device as a game, anyway, so it serves its purpose).  So depth of choice is something to consider, as is the balance between choice and luck (Chess and Go obviously are all choice... but there's no denying that games involving luck are a lot of fun, and for many of us are more fun than pure choice games).</blockquote>

Verification