Video Games

  • Thread starter Thread starter artistwanabe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

artistwanabe

Guest
Hi, first post - sorry if wrong forum.

How would you design a video game that was “good for you”?
or
What would you want in a video game to get your approval - “time well spent”?

Looking for answers for things like:
“should be social”
“should be educational”
etc

Alternatively ideas in terms of taking currently used mechanics and changing it to something more Christian friendly like: FPS is really just a combination of spatial movement controlled by the keyboard and reflexive action with the mouse but sadly the context is usually about killing if we can use the same mechanics in a different context, fill me in please 🙂

Any (name removed by moderator)ut in this subject matter also welcome.

Thanks!
 
The first thing any game needs to be is “fun to play”. Too many “video game designers with a message” forget that first rule and immediately begin focusing on “the message” and their games fail. Games, first and foremost, are a platform for entertainment, not social justice or education.
 
ucfengr said:
The first thing any game needs to be is “fun to play”. Too many “video game designers with a message” forget that first rule and immediately begin focusing on “the message” and their games fail. Games, first and foremost, are a platform for entertainment, not social justice or education.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Hmm. Some thoughts.

On the “worth your time” front:

If a game focuses on strategy–is it interesting and challenging but not too challenging, giving players feedback about what’s working and what isn’t? Does it offer rewards along the way?

If it focuses on story–is it compelling and well-written? If it’s a literary sort of story, does it communicate some truth about life, some food for thought, without being heavy-handed? If it’s just meant to be amusing fluff, is it, in fact, amusing?

Is the game aesthetically pleasing? Technically smooth? Well crafted? Enjoyable?

On the “Christian-friendly” front:

Does the medium suit the subject? If a game is explicitly religious, it may require more care to avoid trivializing the subject.

Does it portray human beings as people to be respected, or does it dehumanize them? Does it reflect what is good, true, and beautiful? Does it avoid promoting values that are contrary to Christian values?
 
…their games fail. Games, first and foremost, are a platform for entertainment, not social justice or education.
Click to expand...
Well it may fail profitability or mass popularity but that is not on the top of my priority list.
Actually it is on the nice to have list. I would consider my game fails if it didn’t do what it should do which is what I am trying to figure out so its not just a “fun but fruitless time sink”.

Also why CAN’T it a platform for education or social justice or whatever? The only difference a game really has from other media is interactivity. I can’t remember any social justice based games but games are used in education quite often especially for very young children.

Regardless, thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut, yes, I will try to make it fun 🙂
Does it portray human beings as people to be respected, or does it dehumanize them? Does it reflect what is good, true, and beautiful? Does it avoid promoting values that are contrary to Christian values?
Click to expand...
This is something very difficult to do I find but yes I am at least aiming to hit neutral.

Actually at the moment, I am working on a small game and am using robots instead of people but I am looking for a better word than “attack”. The best I can think of is “tag” but doesn’t have quite the right ring to it. Any suggestions?
 
If they are hostile robots, attacking them might not be a bad thing to do. 🙂 But if you want something less destructive, what about repairing the robots, or assembling them, or giving them special abilities to they can work together in order to solve a problem? (The game Lemmings comes to mind.) I don’t know how well that would fit with the mechanics you have in mind.

Games can be educational.
 
No 😦 not really “hostile enemy robots”.

Its robots of the opposing player/computer. Players have a conflict of interest of their robots reaching each other’s base to earn points but to get there they have to go through each other’s robots. They don’t really have to “destroy” each other, I just need a label to apply to the rule that lets them “out” each other - given I explicitly have the remnants of the robot with a purpose of being a problem to the defeated, I wonder if thats the problem and why it gives off the wrong “ring to it”.

Thanks for the link~
 
artistwanabe said:
Well it may fail profitability or mass popularity but that is not on the top of my priority list.
Actually it is on the nice to have list. I would consider my game fails if it didn’t do what it should do which is what I am trying to figure out so its not just a “fun but fruitless time sink”.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what the point of making a game that isn’t fun to play is. A game that isn’t fun to play is typically referred to as work, and they pay you to play it, not the other way around…
artistwanabe said:
Also why CAN’T it a platform for education or social justice or whatever? The only difference a game really has from other media is interactivity. I can’t remember any social justice based games but games are used in education quite often especially for very young children.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say it couldn’t be a platform of education or social justice, I said that it can’t be the first priority. Even games used in education have to make fun the first priority, or nobody will play it and the education will be wasted.
 
I didn’t say it couldn’t be a platform of education or social justice, I said that it can’t be the first priority. Even games used in education have to make fun the first priority, or nobody will play it and the education will be wasted.
Click to expand...
Well I guess I jump to a conclusion assuming you meant that it can’t. My bad, sorry.

However I still stand on my priority list. I mean if something achieves to do something and someone wants to accomplish that something they will do it and may or may not refer to it as being fun.

In exercise, you got gym rats and you got people that hate it but do it anyway.
Some bookworms read for pleasure others people to study.

Like you, I didn’t say I didn’t want a fun game. I just move it down the priority list. To make a parallel to your argument of:
“No one will play a non-fun educational game”.
“No one will learn the subject matter if the game doesn’t teach it regardless how fun it is”. Mind you, someone seeking to learn can learn from a educational game and likewise someone will have fun in a fun game.

If your goal is to have fun, then yes the priority will shift fun up to the top of the list, otherwise it will be what the goal is. But just because its ordered that way doesn’t mean you want to discard the lower priorities all together if you are able to include them.

So far my order goes something like this:

-something undecided (this makes it cultivate something good)
-morally friendly (this makes it morally neutral / morally positive)
-fun (this makes it approachable)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top