🚀 go-pugleaf

You know what I mean...it's Kent who doesn't (or didn't) understand this.

Alex Sramek wrote:

> Eep² wrote:
>
> > Fun hardly requires winning; Maxis built an entire industry (the sim) based on non-winning games.
>
> I wouldn't say the sim games are non-winning.  They just don't have
> end-game wins.  They are games of smaller, incremental wins.  Reach
> 10,000 population and get a statue, that's a win.  Build your first
> arco, that's a win.  Destroy your town with aliens or monsters, that's
> (strangely enough) a win.  Just because you don't say "I won!  I beat
> the game!", doesn't mean you haven't won in some respect.
>
> > Kent Dahl wrote:
> >
> >>redsniper7000 wrote:
> >>
> >>>Eep² wrote in message <3D5D08CD...@tnlc.com>...
> >>>
> >>>>Then there's Active Worlds (http://activeworlds.com/ ) and other VR
> >>>>
> >>>(virtual reality) programs which are trying to become multi-user level
> >>>editors (and Active Worlds is the closest but still has a LONG way to go)
> >>>that allow games (of which AW has basic board games) and other interaction
> >>>(building, chatting, "sight-seeing", etc). That's the future of online
> >>>gaming...
> >>>
> >>><reply>
> >>>
> >>>Not it's not. A game has to be FUN.
> >>>
> >>Or as Marcy so well put it in http://www.pvponline.com/ somewhere...
> >>  "For it to be a game, someone has to win."
> >>(or something like that, too lazy to dig out the strip in question)
> >>
> >>Fun is just too subjective a criteria.