I was implying something much simpler about subjectivity and objectivity. That is, if you think you're being objective, you're lying to yourself. Hence, "more towards" being objective, even if the goal is unreachable. We should always be conscious of our inherent subjectivity.

In order to successfully understand what makes a game great or not, you need to put yourself out of the equation.

Although that's scientifically the correct way to go, starting this thread here was for the reason that it's not practical for game design.

If you'd want that a scientific analysis works out, you'd need to have objective definitions for 'fun', but it's not possible, that's why sometimes clones of successful games, although they try to capture all important parts, fail to be as fun as the originals. There have been many games trying to clone WoW, quite some block stacking games before minecraft and a lot of clones afterwards. A LOT of games try to be CoD etc. but they cannot achive what the originals achieved. Sometimes there are successors from the same publisher of successful games, which don't life up to the expectations based on the previous versions.
So, I think it's not wise to take you fully out of the equation. You want to create a game that is fun, this already implies your subjective opinion. I don't say it's impossible to create a game that you don't like, just for the job/money, and it's gonna be a success, but chances are way higher, if you like what you create.

So, I guess by "failure" I don't mean 'that game was completely bad', I probably need to call it "there were few people who appreciated it", this might have various reasons, maybe those games were frickin awesome and it just took too long to get into it, so most people who tried, stopped playing it before it was fun for them. Maybe...

That's why I try to get all your opinions, if I cannot dissect the god games scientifically, but I can try stochastic, if a lot of you guys share some opinion, it's rather the case, than an opinion that just one person has.


@Mratthew
you make me think, that all god games try to co-operate the god and its minions, but putting a rock in the way might be actually more fun. Maybe a god game where those minions are your enemies would be more fun, or actually, maybe you're just their enemy and they still praise you.

I also thought the last days, maybe it's not about good or bad, but maybe gods are needed (in the game) to actually make something happen. without them, everything would be the same every day. Gods might need to decide who should die, who born, when some food gets damanged by some bugs etc.
The idea would be, that all the emotions charge up souls, after they die, you can absorb the soul's energy to charge your power, and plant it into a new-born. the more energy you get, the more powerful you are, obviously. so you'd not try to defend your village or help or just randomly destroy something, you'd rather trigger wars between them, you'd shake the earth just so that all they have is destroyed, and you might rescue some long missed sailsman from the sea, creating a lot of happiness etc.
you ask yourself maybe "why not making war all the time", it's because, although it creates intense feelings which charge a lot of people, it destroys also a lot of bodies, and it takes a while until you find enough new babies to plant all those souls from the wars.
So the whole god game simulations might be about creating believably feeling beings.

do you guys think that might be worth a try?

So, I guess by "failure" I don't mean 'that game was completely bad', I probably need to call it "there were few people who appreciated it", this might have various reasons, maybe those games were frickin awesome and it just took too long to get into it, so most people who tried, stopped playing it before it was fun for them. Maybe...

I distinctly remember playing the Populous III demo and thinking the game had nice visuals with stone monuments, but was boring and pointless. If a game demo can't capture the audience's imagination, I see no reason to wait around for anything to get better. It shows a lack of attention and judgment on the part of the developers. If you're going to make a commercial game, you need to put your best foot forward, when someone is just trying out the game.

do you guys think that might be worth a try?
[/quote]

It will always be your game, your vision, your effort to sustain. Doesn't matter what other people think, what matters is you believe in it enough to see it through to the bitter end. There's nothing inherently wrong with your high concept, and whether it's any good or not will depend on how you actually do it.

Agent behavior fails to be entertaining when it fails to be simultaneously surprising and meaningful. "Meaningful" is really hard to design AI for.

If I may be so bold, I think that also applies to "surprising", considering the fact that most AIs are extremely predictable against anyone with a certain strategic sense.

In my opinion god games fail because the multiplayer is very limited (sharing creations etc. which would be good if the creations were functional like in a physics sim game)

Also the freedom feels limited to make it simpler or easier or run on slow computers.

Like in spore building the city is just to get you to space and only freedom you get is design the buildings (which doesnt affect their functionality =sux) In spore it felt like you just design the appereance of the stuff, not mechanics or such.

If you'd want that a scientific analysis works out, you'd need to have objective definitions for 'fun', but it's not possible.

I beg to differ, fun can be defined objectively. What I think you're talking about is the degree of which it can be done - the accuracy of it (to which it's indeed impossible to calculate 100% certainty). But certainty is something you improve by means of metrics and other user group feedback.

If you want to discuss a game's general success, then you must look at the playerbase as a whole (statistically). If you don't, then there's no way of having any general definition at all (and thus pointless to claim that any game is successful, because opinions differ between people) because "generality" is by definition something that is true "across the board" (in the majority/typical sense and not the absolute one, mind you). Essentially, whenever an article states that a game is successful, they're not referring to their personal opinion on the matter. They're referring to statistical, objective facts (e.g. game sales, although that factor alone is a gross simplification).

Of course, anyone can say that "a game is generally fun", but then you're suddenly referring to the content, not a user group.

I beg to differ, fun can be defined objectively.

So what is your (note irony) "objective" definition then?

If you want to discuss a game's general success, then you must look at the playerbase as a whole (statistically).
[/quote]

You don't have to look at all players, or even most players. All you have to do is decide that if a company of X size spends Y dollars and T time on development, and makes Z profit, that they're "successful." The only thing that matters is given {X Y T}, enough players pay for the game that Z is reached. That's the "support kernel" for the game. Game support kernels can be mutually exclusive, just as the Democratic and Republican parties in the USA are often mutually exclusive, as are all the major world religions. Nevertheless some people are independent voters and some people are atheists / agnostics / members of obscure religions / really don't care about religion. Some game could make a new "support kernel" out of them, that mostly doesn't overlap the dominant industry support kernels, if the developer is sufficiently clever or possibly even lucky. I'd say Myst, Deer Hunter, the Nintendo Wii, and Minecraft Alpha were such instances.

If you don't, then there's no way of having any general definition at all
[/quote]

This is not threatening to some of us. However, you have a vested interest in defining things "objectively," so maybe it is very threatening to you. How are you personally going to make profitable games, if you don't have an objective criterion for how to proceed?

So what is your (note irony) "objective" definition then?

When I say "defined" I'm not talking about a single-sentence dictionary definition. I'm talking about a game's success in terms of how well received it is by a given user group or similar (the market in general). And if you want a job at Blizzard or Bioware, then they may focus on your success in terms of game design, use of algorithms or otherwise that tells something about you as a developer. Just doing an opportunistic money scheme like what Zynga seems to currently be doing, may not cut it.

You don't have to look at all players, or even most players. All you have to do is decide that if a company of X size spends Y dollars and T time on development, and makes Z profit, that they're "successful."

Yes, and where do you suppose that money is coming from if there's nobody buying the game? Then you need to figure out why. What do you think defines a game's (monetary) success to begin with, if not for the players actually buying the game? And the reason why people buy the game isn't just random, they do it because they found the game interesting enough for them.

This is not threatening to some of us. However, you have a vested interest in defining things "objectively," so maybe it is very threatening to you. How are you personally going to make profitable games, if you don't have an objective criterion for how to proceed?

I'm sorry, I seriously don't get what you're talking about. You're now asking me essentially the same question that I've essentially been asking you. And what is this talk about threats? What threats are you talking about? I'm talking about whether you actually know, using sober reasoning and measureds facts, if a given game or game feature is popular or if you're just making guesses (however educated they may be).

In order to figure out what makes a game successful, you need to look at what is actually interesting to a group of people and not just individuals. E.g. simple questions like "How many players would like my game if it featured so and so?". Sometimes it's hard, but sometimes it's easy. But to actually learn it (rather than insisting that it cannot be known), it's not enough to ask individuals in the group. You need to test the group as a whole, to the extent that it's possible. If a high percentage of players like a given feature, you might keep it. If they don't, you might choose not to prioritize it.

Experimenting with unique features isn't about making the entire game super-unique and resting solely on the chance that it could potentially be a great hit. That's a sure way for it not to be. The reason why new and innovative games have been huge hits in the past, is because they manage to balance an ordinary core with extraordinary elements. That way, the game won't flop completely if those new features turn out to be terrible.

Trying to design a completely unique game in all respect and succeeding with it, is like trying to win the lottery. No serious game developer would ever do that, but that doesn't mean that you're catering to Silicon Valley either. It's a balance.

I'm talking about whether you actually know, using the scientific method, if a given game or game feature is popular or if you're just making guesses (however educated they may be).

Can your model of "objective" success actually make any predictions? Could you have predicted the success of Minecraft Alpha, for instance? We both agree that given X=1 person, Y=~$0, T=1 year, and Z=$80 million, that Minecraft Alpha was a success. But how would you have objectively known that that was going to happen?

If you can't predict big, outlier successes, then I don't see much value in an "objective" theory of success or fun. We already know that you might be able to make money in games by conservatively imitating whatever anyone else already did to make money. The game industry has been doing that for a few decades now, with no emphasis on the objective correctness of the approach. It works often enough that most of the game industry continues to believe in it. Those that don't are often called "indies."