Comments on That's a Terrible Idea: Goal Generation (Pt. 2): Games as Relationships

Thoughtful post.

2010-01-03T23:45:36.463-05:00

Thoughtful post.

Intristic goals are also really a tuff nut to crac...

2010-01-01T11:39:43.136-05:00

Intristic goals are also really a tuff nut to crack, because how do you differentiate between player wants and player goals? Like "ME be uber!" - is this a goal or just a player want? "Knowing how to play the game" is this a goal? I would say that goals that Evi talks about should be limited to make sense in-game. Of course this is discarding metagaming (as Evi used it so far) but I would have no problem with that. :]

On a different note, extrinstic implicit goals are implemented in a modern game: Sims. I strongly believe that all the implications that comes with the previous statement is, and will be really important for the gaming industry in the future.

Dblade brings up a good point, in that intrinsic g...

2009-12-30T06:13:34.043-05:00

Dblade brings up a good point, in that intrinsic goals have a lot of dependencies. You have to know the game to make intrinsic goals; one of the first intrinsic goals is often "learn how the game works" in order to make other goals. Relying on other players also can make it tough for an individual to make meaningful goals.

Intrinsic goals are rough, though, because you can...

2009-12-29T14:08:40.069-05:00

Intrinsic goals are rough, though, because you can't always work your will on the world. Lot of people in EVE have a goal to be a yarrrrr pirate, but when they realize the world doesn't work to their wishes, they have to adapt or die.

You have to include some validation even in intrinsic mode. Otherwise you see what happens in EVE-a frustrated PvPer becomes a hisec miner carebear, choosing activities in game which give validation and are achievable. Or they leave entirely. People wont be able to see goals through opposition, especially if players are the main opposition.

I'm going to write up a deeper analysis with e...

2009-12-27T21:50:44.686-05:00

I'm going to write up a deeper analysis with examples of the different goal types and how my two goal classification schemes interact. Certain combinations like explicit + intrinsic may be possible but have not been implemented in a modern game.

The two classifications schemes definitely are not orthogonal to one another. Don't assume that because there are two ways of classifying goals that they should be independent (i.e. that you can have any combination of them feasibly).

I agree that intrinsic goals are limited to sandbox games. Games can basically be on rails, but allow the player to choose how many objectives of what difficulty they'd like to accomplish. More open-world-minded shooters do this and most themepark MMOs allow for it, as well.

The last section of the post was tacked-on. I didn't spend enough time on it and I probably shouldn't have included it.

Interesting taxonomy. Although I'm not sure i...

2009-12-27T20:44:13.342-05:00

Interesting taxonomy. Although I'm not sure if there are many explicit intrinsic goals; it seems that if a goal is explicit it's probably extrinsic. Perhaps you could count if the game prompts people in a certain direction, even if it's not completely spelled out? Like the exploration deeds in games?

I appreciate the insight that explicit = themepark; however, I'm not sure that implicit = sandbox necessarily. I think that someone who can set their own goals can do so in a themepark, as long as there is enough flexibility. The question is how strictly regimented the themepark type game is.

As always, you can relate this to Bartle's types. Explicit = Achiever, Implicit = Explorer when talking about how players interact with the game. Those that involve people (Killers and Socializers) don't fit quite so neatly.