I think an unreconstructed ramble on the specification bleed between goals and processes in gameplay will serve as my round-table entry. So I will pick up straight from onlyagame's contention that "to make the process the goal, [is] to undermine the meaningfulness of the term goal".
Surely by divorcing the term goal from the process which achieves it is to distance it from the commonly accepted idea of the nature of game playing. Games are undertaken primarily for reasons other than production, in that achieving any end outside the game is necessarily defined as a system of activity which includes the game only as a subset. Consider the rare cases of games-within-games: in PGR, one could have an arcade machine in ones garage which ran the instant classic XBLA game Geometry Wars. The goals achieved in playing Geometry Wars had no influence on the superset of activities offered by PGR, just as the goals of playing PGR have no affect on the superset of real life.
Unless one considers the goal of playing to be the passing of time. But surely this implies the process of play is the goal.
Surely by divorcing the term goal from the process which achieves it is to distance it from the commonly accepted idea of the nature of game playing. Games are undertaken primarily for reasons other than production, in that achieving any end outside the game is necessarily defined as a system of activity which includes the game only as a subset. Consider the rare cases of games-within-games: in PGR, one could have an arcade machine in ones garage which ran the instant classic XBLA game Geometry Wars. The goals achieved in playing Geometry Wars had no influence on the superset of activities offered by PGR, just as the goals of playing PGR have no affect on the superset of real life.
Unless one considers the goal of playing to be the passing of time. But surely this implies the process of play is the goal.
Which leads us to the position that game play is a self-actualising goal, for a game must be played, and play is a process, and if a process is a goal - you see where this is going.
But then how can it be detrimental to enjoyable gaming to have games with too little structure and guidance? If just being there was enough, designing a game would be just a matter of providing the tools.
Hmm...this seems incomplete - perhaps a little more depth of examination is required...
Hmm...this seems incomplete - perhaps a little more depth of examination is required...
13 comments:
Welcome to the Round Table!
If I could get you to visit the Round Table main page and get the code provided in the FAQs added to the post, that'd be great. Otherwise, please provide a link to this month's entry on the Round Table's main page!
Round Table FAQ
Round Table May '07
I am not certain I agree with the notion that to make the process the goal is to undermine the nature of a goal. I honestly think that process itself is a form of goal.
Perhaps there should be a more hard and fast definition of what a goal actually is, and where do user defined goals fit into the spectrum? I have seen players break many a structured system in pursuit of player created goals.
The interesting thing about this ramble, zenBen, is that it ties itself in knots trying to unravel a peculiar knot that seems simple to straighten out. Trouble is, it's not that simple... :)
If process is a form of goal, then we are expanding the term goal such that it has a dual meaning in a single context (the goal of the process, and the process as a goal). I don't deny this is possible, but is it wise?
Best wishes!
acuVZS Very good blog! Thanks!
gFfFBK actually, that's brilliant. Thank you. I'm going to pass that on to a couple of people.
Please write anything else!
Magnific!
Wonderful blog.
Thanks to author.
Nice Article.
actually, that's brilliant. Thank you. I'm going to pass that on to a couple of people.
actually, that's brilliant. Thank you. I'm going to pass that on to a couple of people.
actually, that's brilliant. Thank you. I'm going to pass that on to a couple of people.
Post a Comment