Hi Dark, Responding below:
Dark said: interesting thoughts, however one fact which distinguishes those games from a lot of computer games is that they are exclusviely uniquely social events. (end of quote) Agreed, however, the question was about the nature of good game design versus mere popularity and crowd appeal. I submit that while these games are social events, they are social events precisely because they incorporate good design. Many early computer games, such as Pong, Space Invaders, etc also had a social aspect. You could go play them solo, but it was more fun to have four friends hanging over the console screaming encouragement or cursing your fate if you were beating their high score. Many online games, while they do not provide the active one-on-one experience of a chess game or monopoly game in the real world do provide a certain level of social interaction. I think you're sort of undermining your initial point here with your counterargument. Dark said: Until the invention of computers that could act as human opponents, all of those games required people to get together. (end of quote) Well, not strictly true. One can play chess problems which is essentially solo chess from a set position. One can also play Scrabble against oneself by logging as high a score as possible then competing with yourself. However, point granted. Dark said: There is a very big difference between a game played face to face with your friends and a game played at odds, even across the internet. This is one reason why, though I love games like muds or browser rpgs or games like entombed that give me a huge world to explore and a character to play, I have no interest in rp on the internet. To mye, roleplaying via text chat, mud character actions etc, particularly when there is no human gm to interact with your characters, insert npcs and give you an over all plot is just a poor second best. (end of quote) Agreed, if you're searching for a replacement for the human experience usually found with friends, in a social setting. If you are looking for a semi-rp experience that can approach such things, they are worthwhile. Just as playing chess against a computer player is not as satisfying. Again though, point granted. As a habitual tabletop GM I enjoy muds and online rpg just to be on the player end of things, but you are right it's not the same. As to the rest of your points about social event versus computer game, and why one type of mechanic succeeds over another, I think you have made the point yourself, and where you failed to make it, Kara made it for you: 1. The game demonstrates good game design or: 2. 2. The game is popular because a number of people push it either socially, through marketing, or by buying it over other titles with more interesting mechanics. I think Supermario succeeded over some other titles because of two facts: it was extremely whimsical so you didn't have to care about the characters, but if you wanted to, there was a story (no matter how inane). Second, the game mechanics were very simple, and it was friendly to a wide range of players from kindergarteners to those of an advanced age who showed an interest. It demonstrated, essentially, several of your points about good design: 1. Characters and a storyline. 2. 2. A world to explore. 3. 3. Unique challenges. 4. 4. Simple mechanics. 5. 5. Presented a challenge. I submit that the reason why it became so popular was that while it initially generated good sales, Nintendo continued to push it by including variations, new versions, sequels, and the like as free games with later releases of their consoles. It was ubitquitous because it was marketed as a first game. Add merchandising in the form of cartoons etc, and it is easy to see how it gained traction. Why other titles flopped is harder to explain, and I think perhaps if we take your criteria and applied them we might find issues. It's only a guess. My points about Monopoly and company is just that I think they are popular for a variety of reasons both merchandising/push and in terms of good game design despite their flaws. Finally, Chess of course is a special case, as is Snakes and Ladders, since both evolved from Medieval games, but Monopoly, Scrabble, and to a lesser extent Sorry, all appeared in eras where board game competition was less sophisticated in some ways. While there were multiple versions of Monopoly style games in play in the early 30s, the guy who designed Monopoly (Charles something starting with a D but the name is eluding me at the moment I wanna say Darrow but that looks wrong) arrived with a good design at the right time and sold it to the right company. Parker Brothers pushed it hard and regularly, and it has gained traction. The Game of Life is an example of a game with a rediculous premise that is popular, but I don't understand why except by applying the common characteristics I outlined in the last message. Anyway, thanks, good rebuttal, Take care, Jeremy -- In the fight between you and the world--back the world! Frank Zapa --- Gamers mailing list __ Gamers@audyssey.org If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to gamers-unsubscr...@audyssey.org. You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at http://audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org. All messages are archived and can be searched and read at http://www.mail-archive.com/gamers@audyssey.org. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the list, please send E-mail to gamers-ow...@audyssey.org.
