I take your point to a certain extent - if it models the real world - as you say - is real-world relevant - it wouldn't, strictly speaking, be a game. The ethical problem arises when something which is not, in this sense a 'game' is presented as if it is a game (i.e. a true competition where the user's/player's actions 'matter'). Perhaps we can think in terms of a larger category of aesthetic experiences within which simulators, models and games can all be located...i think, if the designer is honest about what it is that they have made - maybe they have just made something that is heaps of fun but isn't a game, that should be enough to address this ethical concern, no?
@@GamesbyMarcWolff I think what gauravtejpal wanted to know was whether people should be concerned about whether the "game" is a real game or not if the designer is "honest" and possibly "transparent" about how he/she designed the "game" that might be a lot of fun for many players... If the designer is honest and the "game" is fun, should people (the players) care about whether it is a real game or not...
I have a question about game balance. what if you have multiple classes with different power levels. the more powerful classes can defeat monsters faster, but have lower rewards, while the weaker classes kill monsters slower but each one yields higher rewards. if the two classes then can both obtain the same rate of rewards per hour, is that balancing the classes in terms of how fast they can obtain rewards? because then, rate of rewards is determined by strategy, not by choosing a better or worse class.
Edit: Thank you for your question! I think in order to answer this question you'd need to specify a few more things, like how exactly they're different in power level and how you're defining rewards in this game. It might be helpful too, although I'm not sure, to consider such questions both in the assumed context of an action-rpg combat system, but also possibly in some other type of competition. I think too you'll have to consider what you mean by classes, because you may already be removing full customization of strategy. This is where we need to know ahead of time what the answers to the above questions are to speculate further.
Then your understanding of what a game is, by definition, is meaningless. And yes, the Grand Unified Theory of Game Design is provided for you in the description of this video.
@@GamesbyMarcWolff There are no rules for music, or movies, or other types of art. If you follow strict rules for making games, you can never make anything new, you can only remake games that already exist.
@@threeheadguy Marc's unified theory of game design could potentially change a lot! But people who want to design games, they first have to apply this theory properly...If properly applied, games wouldn't really look the same, be the same etc... Marc just wants that players won't have to play pay-to-win games, games with real-world relevance, games that are not immersive enough, games without customization, games without strategy...games that are a scam and that are primarily a waste of time... But, yes, there are theoretically no "rules" for music, art etc... But shouldn't there be at least a few "rules" for people who want to design games? Perhaps it would either be too difficult or not lucrative enough for many game designers to apply this unified theory of game design, especially if they want to earn money...they need to pay rent, buy food etc... Yes, we all need some real examples, as long as people don't play games that were designed with this theory in mind, and also fully applied, we will never know how this theory can/could improve games...and these kind of games should/must also become popular (the designers of these games should earn a good amount of money) otherwise many people wouldn't take them seriously!
@@threeheadguy What you're saying is just word salad unfortunately. It's nonsense. You can see this is obvious because there's nothing to support your claims. You can state them all you like, but without proving them, and unless you can disprove what I've presented to the world, then you're just speaking hot hair and none of it's true.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I take your point to a certain extent - if it models the real world - as you say - is real-world relevant - it wouldn't, strictly speaking, be a game. The ethical problem arises when something which is not, in this sense a 'game' is presented as if it is a game (i.e. a true competition where the user's/player's actions 'matter'). Perhaps we can think in terms of a larger category of aesthetic experiences within which simulators, models and games can all be located...i think, if the designer is honest about what it is that they have made - maybe they have just made something that is heaps of fun but isn't a game, that should be enough to address this ethical concern, no?
I'm not sure what your question is exactly.
Can you simplify?
@@GamesbyMarcWolff
I think what gauravtejpal wanted to know was whether people should be concerned about whether the "game" is a real game or not if the designer is "honest" and possibly "transparent" about how he/she designed the "game" that might be a lot of fun for many players...
If the designer is honest and the "game" is fun, should people (the players) care about whether it is a real game or not...
@@danielobenhaus8100 Thank you Daniel, and perhaps, but so far the poster has not responded so I'd like to wait and see before making assumptions.
@@GamesbyMarcWolff Daniel is correct in how they explained it
@@danielobenhaus8100Thank you. Yes. This was mostly what I meant to ask.
I have a question about game balance.
what if you have multiple classes with different power levels. the more powerful classes can defeat monsters faster, but have lower rewards, while the weaker classes kill monsters slower but each one yields higher rewards.
if the two classes then can both obtain the same rate of rewards per hour, is that balancing the classes in terms of how fast they can obtain rewards? because then, rate of rewards is determined by strategy, not by choosing a better or worse class.
Edit: Thank you for your question!
I think in order to answer this question you'd need to specify a few more things, like how exactly they're different in power level and how you're defining rewards in this game.
It might be helpful too, although I'm not sure, to consider such questions both in the assumed context of an action-rpg combat system, but also possibly in some other type of competition.
I think too you'll have to consider what you mean by classes, because you may already be removing full customization of strategy. This is where we need to know ahead of time what the answers to the above questions are to speculate further.
There is no 'unified theory' for game design. There are no rules. True game design is free of any rules or limitations.
Then your understanding of what a game is, by definition, is meaningless.
And yes, the Grand Unified Theory of Game Design is provided for you in the description of this video.
@@GamesbyMarcWolff There are no rules for music, or movies, or other types of art. If you follow strict rules for making games, you can never make anything new, you can only remake games that already exist.
@@threeheadguy
Marc's unified theory of game design could potentially change a lot! But people who want to design games, they first have to apply this theory properly...If properly applied, games wouldn't really look the same, be the same etc...
Marc just wants that players won't have to play pay-to-win games, games with real-world relevance, games that are not immersive enough, games without customization, games without strategy...games that are a scam and that are primarily a waste of time...
But, yes, there are theoretically no "rules" for music, art etc...
But shouldn't there be at least a few "rules" for people who want to design games?
Perhaps it would either be too difficult or not lucrative enough for many game designers to apply this unified theory of game design, especially if they want to earn money...they need to pay rent, buy food etc...
Yes, we all need some real examples, as long as people don't play games that were designed with this theory in mind, and also fully applied, we will never know how this theory can/could improve games...and these kind of games should/must also become popular (the designers of these games should earn a good amount of money) otherwise many people wouldn't take them seriously!
@@threeheadguy What you're saying is just word salad unfortunately. It's nonsense.
You can see this is obvious because there's nothing to support your claims.
You can state them all you like, but without proving them, and unless you can disprove what I've presented to the world, then you're just speaking hot hair and none of it's true.